-Thanks tony,
The trampoline would still be prety large but you are quite right
about getting a bit wet if you want to keep pushing it in a blow
though it should be fairly clear of the spray from the boat.
Robert



-- In harryproa@..., "Tony Richardson"
<atrichardson@b...> wrote:
> That idea could have merit
> only downside I could see is when it blows hard and you have to be
out in the weather to provide the righting moment. But only if you
want to stay fast.
> You would only have a very small deck area as well good/bad?
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Robert
>   To: harryproa@...
>   Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 11:24 AM
>   Subject: [harryproa] small Harry ww pods
>
>
>   For my small Harry I an considering having the hulls exactly at
the
>   2.5m max towing width and having either a fold-out or slide out
ww
>   accommodation pod- a bit like a wing on a skiff. It would be
>   collapsed and possibly slightly incline while sailing and popped
up
>   and level for sleeping. This would keep some of the righting
moment
>   and allow fixed hull and crossbeam connections as well as
reducing
>   racking forces between the hulls. For racing it could be replaced
by
>   a lightweight rediculously wide wing. Fo a quiet fish it could be
>   left off altogether. Can any one think of any reason not to go
down
>   this track?
>   Robert
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
>   Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>     a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
>     http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/harryproa/
>
>     b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>     harryproa-unsubscribe@...
>
>     c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.

I have a jarcat 5 and I appreciate he ease of rigging and having
everything working, includung the kitchen sink. My only problem is
that it is a bit bouncey in shallow water chop and I feel
uncomfortable launching it at some exposed ramps.
I feel the Harry configuration would be much more comfortable in
these conditions and be able to be pushed much harder. Expanding the
beam probably makes more sense, but I am pig headed enough to try the
configuration in my head, which is a foldout pod 1.4m wide, 50cm
high, 2.2m long with a popout over one end of the double bunk to give
sitting up room. The top of it becomes the cockpit seats, facing
inwards.  It does mean that cooking and crapping aren't catered for
as well as a jarcat, and sleeping while sailing a bit more
restricted, but a bit of privacy could be created at one end of the
ww hull and a shelterd nook for cooking at the other end.
I hope I can make it simple and light enough. It is based on a simple
hinge on the ww hull restrained by a rod, like on folding card
tables. Theoretically I can do the pod for 25-30kg using ply and poly
carbonate, not counting bedding so probably more like 35-40kg for the
pod.
The bigggest difficulty I am having is that the cockpit on a jarcat
is protected by the accommodation (except that you are going to be on
the ww side copping a load of spray), but a double ended
configuration in the small sizes makes this difficult. Having the
accommodation to ww helps, and, with a bit of extra protection back
of the bows it should come close to equivalent protection.

I have been tring to find out about the use of polystyrene with
laminated bamboo skins that is starting to be used for surfboards.
Has any one heard much about this combination?
Robert



   --- In harryproa@..., "proaconstrictor"
<proaconstrictor@y...> wrote:
> We had quite a discusion of this kind of thing back about a year,
on
> the Multihull boatbuilding group, you could search for that
> discusion.  Our premise was it would make sense because it was one
> approach to a truly launcheable small multi, as opposed to the kind
> of thing that takes hours to rig, and won't fit on many small
ramps.
> I think the contrary view was basicaly that new beams or whatever
it
> is that's supposed to be out there cooking would make the need for
a
> fixed beam HP unit redundant.  Either needs to meet the Jarcat test
> of plans that actualy exist for things that actualy work, which was
> what we were shooting for.  I don't think we made it.  You can
really
> see how an HP has a niche vs similar weight multis, but this
smaller
> thing, I'm not sure it had a hope.
>
>
> --- In harryproa@..., "Robert" <cateran1949@y...>
> wrote:
> > For my small Harry I an considering having the hulls exactly at
the
> > 2.5m max towing width and having either a fold-out or slide out
ww
> > accommodation pod- a bit like a wing on a skiff. It would be
> > collapsed and possibly slightly incline while sailing and popped
up
> > and level for sleeping. This would keep some of the righting
moment
> > and allow fixed hull and crossbeam connections as well as
reducing
> > racking forces between the hulls. For racing it could be replaced
> by
> > a lightweight rediculously wide wing. Fo a quiet fish it could be
> > left off altogether. Can any one think of any reason not to go
down
> > this track?
> > Robert

----- Original Message -----

From: Robert

To: harryproa@...

Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 11:24 AM

Subject: [harryproa] small Harry ww pods

For my small Harry I an considering having the hulls exactly at the
2.5m max towing width and having either a fold-out or slide out ww
accommodation pod- a bit like a wing on a skiff. It would be
collapsed and possibly slightly incline while sailing and popped up
and level for sleeping. This would keep some of the righting moment
and allow fixed hull and crossbeam connections as well as reducing
racking forces between the hulls. For racing it could be replaced by
a lightweight rediculously wide wing. Fo a quiet fish it could be
left off altogether. Can any one think of any reason not to go down
this track?
Robert

We had quite a discusion of this kind of thing back about a year, on
the Multihull boatbuilding group, you could search for that
discusion.  Our premise was it would make sense because it was one
approach to a truly launcheable small multi, as opposed to the kind
of thing that takes hours to rig, and won't fit on many small ramps.
I think the contrary view was basicaly that new beams or whatever it
is that's supposed to be out there cooking would make the need for a
fixed beam HP unit redundant.  Either needs to meet the Jarcat test
of plans that actualy exist for things that actualy work, which was
what we were shooting for.  I don't think we made it.  You can really
see how an HP has a niche vs similar weight multis, but this smaller
thing, I'm not sure it had a hope.


--- In harryproa@..., "Robert" <cateran1949@y...>
wrote:
> For my small Harry I an considering having the hulls exactly at the
> 2.5m max towing width and having either a fold-out or slide out ww
> accommodation pod- a bit like a wing on a skiff. It would be
> collapsed and possibly slightly incline while sailing and popped up
> and level for sleeping. This would keep some of the righting moment
> and allow fixed hull and crossbeam connections as well as reducing
> racking forces between the hulls. For racing it could be replaced
by
> a lightweight rediculously wide wing. Fo a quiet fish it could be
> left off altogether. Can any one think of any reason not to go down
> this track?
> Robert

For my small Harry I an considering having the hulls exactly at the
2.5m max towing width and having either a fold-out or slide out ww
accommodation pod- a bit like a wing on a skiff. It would be
collapsed and possibly slightly incline while sailing and popped up
and level for sleeping. This would keep some of the righting moment
and allow fixed hull and crossbeam connections as well as reducing
racking forces between the hulls. For racing it could be replaced by
a lightweight rediculously wide wing. Fo a quiet fish it could be
left off altogether. Can any one think of any reason not to go down
this track?
Robert

Actually I personally do care about the mundane things cause
interesting tips or issues surface.  The elevation of the lower
strut support for the rudder has generated some discussion.

I am very interested in the progress of the boarding ramp, and
it's method for securing.

As the tramp area has mostly disappeared, how much water can
or will the crossbeam area hold if green water comes over the
top ?

Can green water enter the cabin area if deluged ?  There is a lip
but is it enough given a dousing will be expected.

Just to let you know we do follow progress and detail is helpful in
understanding.   Whatever you can do we all appreciate the
effort.

Regards,

JT

--- In harryproa@..., "michele balharry"
<michele@o...> wrote:
> Thanks Robert. No admin funds, paid subscriptions, or 'digs'
of any kind
> (thanks all the same JT) will expedite posting. We don't want to
bore over
> 300 people with images of sanding, however smooth the
results.  It won't be
> long though before there is really something to look at . . .
>
> Cheers,
>
>     Michele
>
>
> ------------------------------------
> Michele Balharry
> Harryproa Pty. Ltd.
> ph: +61 02 6655 2016
> fax: +61 02 6655 9994
> e-mail: michele@o...
> web site: www.harryproa.com
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert" <cateran1949@y...>
> To: <harryproa@...>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 8:56 AM
> Subject: [harryproa] Re: motors
>
>
> > I am happy to let them post when they can find a moment to
scratch
> > themselves. Maybe some generous souls could chip in for
admin
> > assistance.
> > > Maybe not needed but could be interesting.  We will soon
get the
> > > visionarry initial sea trials and perhaps they will provide
some
> > > feedback on performance in 6-8ft+  swells.  Maybe Rob &
Michele
> > will
> > > even give us an update on build status to date.  This does
> > constitute
> > > an official (dig).  However we all know there is no obligation
to
> > > post updates, since none of us are paying.  Maybe that's
what we
> > need
> > > is paid subscriptions to "H-Proaworld".  We have 137 folks
with
> > > interest.
> > >
> > > JT
> > >
> > > > I was thinking of minimal foils for damping hobbyhorsing
rather
> > > than
> > > > for creating lift. One of my hobby horses is that my
experience
> > > > suggests that pitching going into seas causes all sorts of
> > > reduction
> > > > in speed and reduction of that pitching greatly improves
the
> > speed
> > > > and comfort of passage making and also increases the
number of
> > > those
> > > > willing to sail.
> > > >
> > > > More comfort so passengers and crew can handle more
speed and
> > make
> > > > fewer mistakes and not have to heave to as early;
> > > > Less strain on the gear so you can press harder without
fear of
> > > > breaking things;
> > > > Less drag from wave action;
> > > > Better flow over the sails so better lift to drag ratio;
> > > > Better flow over the foils;
> > > > Props also work better if they stay in the water;
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > In general I agree with you about the hassle of lifting foils.
> > > > I still think that a foil on the ww hull with a sensor a bit like
> > > > that on the Hobie foiler would be worth looking at for a
racing
> > > Harry
> > > > for ease of keeping the hull just airborne or possibly a
Fritz
> > type
> > > > foil <http:/proadesign.com> and possibly a Fritz type foil
on the
> > > ww
> > > > hull  for a cruising Harry, thus reducing the depths
needed on
> > the
> > > > rudders. I should try it on my small Harry type, though I
am not
> > > sure
> > > > how I can get it ti lift smoothly. Maybe fold in from halfway
> > down
> > > > the leeward side of the ww hull (where it starts to curve
under)
> > > from
> > > > a hinge on the top of the foil.
> > > > Robert
> > > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> > To visit your group on the web, go to:
> >  http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/harryproa/
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> >  harryproa-unsubscribe@...
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
> >  http://au.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >

--- In harryproa@..., "Robert"
<cateran1949@y...> wrote:
> If the electric drive is charging while sailing , do you have a
prop
> only on one end designed to charge while coming and going,
> Robert

Props are a challenge..... of course they have been on the design
table of lots of manufacturers.   Coming and going presents the
same problem ever since the screw presented the first
opportunity to move water helically.  On a regular outboard with
smaller prop dia and high rpm, cavitation and other efficiency
losses demand optimization for thrust in at least one direction.
The blades are cupped and attack angle/ blade shape optimized
for best performance.  Net result is reverse is typically 50% of
forward (if you are lucky to do that well)  AND more fun cause
many props are spinning fast plus not aligned level, resulting in
the prop walk phenomenon.

IF we choose the option of a high torque low rpm (1200 max)
electric drive, then prop design makes a different set of
parameters.  For high torque/ low rpm we need a large prop with
lots of surface area (3 blade typical).  And we are not looking at
high speed say 10 knots max, then we have a scenario where a
tug prop makes sense.  Tug props are large, flat blade (not
cupped)  and some take advantage of kort nozzles to maximize
thrust behind the prop versus radially away from the prop
(wasted energy).   I think that can work with a reasonable degree
of efficiency.  The kort nozzel would be double ended, a flare
opening at either end, (forward & reverse thrust) but still have
most of the advantages.

Granted we have NOT optimized for either direction, but my goal
is reasonable efficiency at operating speeds giving the same
thrust no matter which way I choose to go.   A more interesting
solution is a voight-schneider cyclonic prop.  Those folks are not
ready for commercialization.   A few too many small moving
parts, running at higher rpms is not a recipe for success.

Swinging the motor around personally does not satisfy my
sensibility test for practical.   Otherwise it would be a common
approach on other vessel types.

Orrrrr you can just accept the status quo of prop design and
recharge/ power at 50% or less efficiency when facing the
suboptimized direction.  It can work just not as well.   We at least
have a chance of fair performance or better using a larger slow
rotating prop.

Regards,

JT

If the electric drive is charging while sailing , do you have a prop
only on one end designed to charge while coming and going,
Robert

Thanks Robert. No admin funds, paid subscriptions, or 'digs' of any kind
(thanks all the same JT) will expedite posting. We don't want to bore over
300 people with images of sanding, however smooth the results.  It won't be
long though before there is really something to look at . . .

Cheers,

     Michele


------------------------------------
Michele Balharry
Harryproa Pty. Ltd.
ph: +61 02 6655 2016
fax: +61 02 6655 9994
e-mail: michele@...
web site: www.harryproa.com





----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert" <cateran1949@...>
To: <harryproa@...>
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 8:56 AM
Subject: [harryproa] Re: motors


> I am happy to let them post when they can find a moment to scratch
> themselves. Maybe some generous souls could chip in for admin
> assistance.
> > Maybe not needed but could be interesting.  We will soon get the
> > visionarry initial sea trials and perhaps they will provide some
> > feedback on performance in 6-8ft+  swells.  Maybe Rob & Michele
> will
> > even give us an update on build status to date.  This does
> constitute
> > an official (dig).  However we all know there is no obligation to
> > post updates, since none of us are paying.  Maybe that's what we
> need
> > is paid subscriptions to "H-Proaworld".  We have 137 folks with
> > interest.
> >
> > JT
> >
> > > I was thinking of minimal foils for damping hobbyhorsing rather
> > than
> > > for creating lift. One of my hobby horses is that my experience
> > > suggests that pitching going into seas causes all sorts of
> > reduction
> > > in speed and reduction of that pitching greatly improves the
> speed
> > > and comfort of passage making and also increases the number of
> > those
> > > willing to sail.
> > >
> > > More comfort so passengers and crew can handle more speed and
> make
> > > fewer mistakes and not have to heave to as early;
> > > Less strain on the gear so you can press harder without fear of
> > > breaking things;
> > > Less drag from wave action;
> > > Better flow over the sails so better lift to drag ratio;
> > > Better flow over the foils;
> > > Props also work better if they stay in the water;
> > >
> > >
> > > In general I agree with you about the hassle of lifting foils.
> > > I still think that a foil on the ww hull with a sensor a bit like
> > > that on the Hobie foiler would be worth looking at for a racing
> > Harry
> > > for ease of keeping the hull just airborne or possibly a Fritz
> type
> > > foil <http:/proadesign.com> and possibly a Fritz type foil on the
> > ww
> > > hull  for a cruising Harry, thus reducing the depths needed on
> the
> > > rudders. I should try it on my small Harry type, though I am not
> > sure
> > > how I can get it ti lift smoothly. Maybe fold in from halfway
> down
> > > the leeward side of the ww hull (where it starts to curve under)
> > from
> > > a hinge on the top of the foil.
> > > Robert
> > >
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
>  http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/harryproa/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>  harryproa-unsubscribe@...
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
>  http://au.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

I am happy to let them post when they can find a moment to scratch
themselves. Maybe some generous souls could chip in for admin
assistance.
> Maybe not needed but could be interesting.  We will soon get the
> visionarry initial sea trials and perhaps they will provide some
> feedback on performance in 6-8ft+  swells.  Maybe Rob & Michele
will
> even give us an update on build status to date.  This does
constitute
> an official (dig).  However we all know there is no obligation to
> post updates, since none of us are paying.  Maybe that's what we
need
> is paid subscriptions to "H-Proaworld".  We have 137 folks with
> interest.
>
> JT
>
> > I was thinking of minimal foils for damping hobbyhorsing rather
> than
> > for creating lift. One of my hobby horses is that my experience
> > suggests that pitching going into seas causes all sorts of
> reduction
> > in speed and reduction of that pitching greatly improves the
speed
> > and comfort of passage making and also increases the number of
> those
> > willing to sail.
> >
> > More comfort so passengers and crew can handle more speed and
make
> > fewer mistakes and not have to heave to as early;
> > Less strain on the gear so you can press harder without fear of
> > breaking things;
> > Less drag from wave action;
> > Better flow over the sails so better lift to drag ratio;
> > Better flow over the foils;
> > Props also work better if they stay in the water;
> >
> >
> > In general I agree with you about the hassle of lifting foils.
> > I still think that a foil on the ww hull with a sensor a bit like
> > that on the Hobie foiler would be worth looking at for a racing
> Harry
> > for ease of keeping the hull just airborne or possibly a Fritz
type
> > foil <http:/proadesign.com> and possibly a Fritz type foil on the
> ww
> > hull  for a cruising Harry, thus reducing the depths needed on
the
> > rudders. I should try it on my small Harry type, though I am not
> sure
> > how I can get it ti lift smoothly. Maybe fold in from halfway
down
> > the leeward side of the ww hull (where it starts to curve under)
> from
> > a hinge on the top of the foil.
> > Robert
> >

John suggested renaming a thread started in 'motors'.
What are the best ways to limit hobbbyhorsing?
The low bottom bracket on the rudders has neen suggested as both a
damping mechanism and a lift mechanism while there is also the
problem that if the boat goes down to much by the nose it could start
hydrofoiling down- the reason for the holes.
  My own suggestion is turn the bracket into a lifting foil with
backward facing holes for the time the boat is pointing too much down
hill. Unfortunately ther is no free lunch. creating lift also creates
drag- and the overall difference in drag form the reduced hull in the
water, especially at low speeds is seldom worth it.
Other suggestions are strakes, which increase wetted surface area but
damp down pitching. They may also improve flow over a hull. There has
been some work done on Viking hulls that suggest they worked
remarkably well. I will be probably using external stringers doubling
as rubbing strakes. I will be working out the best lines to follow
for the 5 knot region
I also reintroduced the concept of a foil, a la Fritz, on the ww hull
to reduce the length of the rudders needed for the cruising types and
also to provide better control when flying a hull on the racing types.
  The most important aspect in reducing hobbyhorsing is already
incorporated: the long low rocker hulls, with bouyancy low in the
bows, and a much as possible of the weight low and in the
longitudinal centre.

----- Original Message -----

From: colcampey

To: harryproa@...

Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2004 8:07 AM

Subject: [harryproa] Batteries

Hi JT and all,

How about these batteries?  

http://www.everspring.net/product-battery.htm 

Regards,

Col Campey

Hi JT and all,

How about these batteries?

http://www.everspring.net/product-battery.htm

Regards,

Col Campey

Might work on a smaller harry.  But major problem for a visionarry.
See http://www.foils.org/sailfoil.htm for info regarding foils and
their designs.  I think unless it can get the boat out of the water
you will have it will be causing drag most of the time or not
sufficiently robust in a retractable arrangement.   Fiberglass lacks
rigidity, the reaction plane will take some significant changeable
loads from your sensor canard wing. Moving wings or not, loads will
shift with speed and angle of attack.  My guess is there are some
practical limitations, enough folks have tried the wings on all kinds
of craft.

If you want to pursue the idea for more input maybe start another
thread, with proper subject line.  I think perhaps there could be
some hull shape changes, strakes or other methods to limit nose
diving, pitchpole scenarios.  Certainly the longer narrow LW hull
helps that issue, but perhaps more can be done.  For instance the
mounts for the rudders are Very LOW to waterline.  What if the bottom
bracket had an additional appendage that added lift if submerged ?

Maybe not needed but could be interesting.  We will soon get the
visionarry initial sea trials and perhaps they will provide some
feedback on performance in 6-8ft+  swells.  Maybe Rob & Michele will
even give us an update on build status to date.  This does constitute
an official (dig).  However we all know there is no obligation to
post updates, since none of us are paying.  Maybe that's what we need
is paid subscriptions to "H-Proaworld".  We have 137 folks with
interest.

JT

> I was thinking of minimal foils for damping hobbyhorsing rather
than
> for creating lift. One of my hobby horses is that my experience
> suggests that pitching going into seas causes all sorts of
reduction
> in speed and reduction of that pitching greatly improves the speed
> and comfort of passage making and also increases the number of
those
> willing to sail.
>
> More comfort so passengers and crew can handle more speed and make
> fewer mistakes and not have to heave to as early;
> Less strain on the gear so you can press harder without fear of
> breaking things;
> Less drag from wave action;
> Better flow over the sails so better lift to drag ratio;
> Better flow over the foils;
> Props also work better if they stay in the water;
>
>
> In general I agree with you about the hassle of lifting foils.
> I still think that a foil on the ww hull with a sensor a bit like
> that on the Hobie foiler would be worth looking at for a racing
Harry
> for ease of keeping the hull just airborne or possibly a Fritz type
> foil <http:/proadesign.com> and possibly a Fritz type foil on the
ww
> hull  for a cruising Harry, thus reducing the depths needed on the
> rudders. I should try it on my small Harry type, though I am not
sure
> how I can get it ti lift smoothly. Maybe fold in from halfway down
> the leeward side of the ww hull (where it starts to curve under)
from
> a hinge on the top of the foil.
> Robert
>

--- In harryproa@..., "jjtctaylor" <jtaylor412@c...>
wrote:
> Yes sir,
>
> The submarine pod would be extreme and agree the maintenance would
be
> duties of a small child.  Of course the pod would take added weight
> just for the pod supporting structure. Some strengthening and
changes
> to the overall system may be needed as the pod itself will impart
> some forces not in the original design.
  Foils have been a mess for designers.  They add drag at low speed,
at
> mid speed they create lift reducing drag but at higher speeds the
> mechanics of foil design cannot handle the loads and they break,
like
> dragging a soda straw though jello.


I was thinking of minimal foils for damping hobbyhorsing rather than
for creating lift. One of my hobby horses is that my experience
suggests that pitching going into seas causes all sorts of reduction
in speed and reduction of that pitching greatly improves the speed
and comfort of passage making and also increases the number of those
willing to sail.

More comfort so passengers and crew can handle more speed and make
fewer mistakes and not have to heave to as early;
Less strain on the gear so you can press harder without fear of
breaking things;
Less drag from wave action;
Better flow over the sails so better lift to drag ratio;
Better flow over the foils;
Props also work better if they stay in the water;


In general I agree with you about the hassle of lifting foils.
I still think that a foil on the ww hull with a sensor a bit like
that on the Hobie foiler would be worth looking at for a racing Harry
for ease of keeping the hull just airborne or possibly a Fritz type
foil <http:/proadesign.com> and possibly a Fritz type foil on the ww
hull  for a cruising Harry, thus reducing the depths needed on the
rudders. I should try it on my small Harry type, though I am not sure
how I can get it ti lift smoothly. Maybe fold in from halfway down
the leeward side of the ww hull (where it starts to curve under) from
a hinge on the top of the foil.
Robert




>>
> Not sure a Visionarry will get the speed necessary to make foils do
> something practical.  I am sure Rob will get the Elementary up to
> tripping speed.  But should not yet cast aside ideas to make more
> effective use of a weight distribution.  Don't forget many cruiser
> types will opt for a diesel genset 6-10KW as back up for the
> batteries.  No you don't want to reduce your battery bank just
cause
> you have a genset.  Ideally the genset should run very infrequently
> and only when the sailing regen is insufficient due to calm airs.
> Otherwise the generator would run too often and you batt bank cycle
> too often, both are wearing things out too soon.
>
> So you have 200-300 kg of batteries, AND 150-250 Kg genset to
> balance.  My plan was to have them in the LW hull on either side of
> the mast stub about 2M distant from the mast itself.  (2M spacing)
is
> the lightning kill zone near the mast.  I would work with Rob &
Mark
> to get the balance right with the structural changes to support the
> bank and genset.  Inverter and electrical distribution frame would
go
> in there too,  Plus MY workbench (fold down table) !  Boss gets the
> galley, I get my own hull and at least 10KW for my fan.
>
> The other option was in to put all this stuff in large storage
boxes
> on the LW side of the WW hull.  Service maintenance would be done
> from the outside.  But that puts a lot of weight at a higher CG and
> added stresses to the crossbeams.  But always welcome other
> suggestions.
>
> Regards,
>
> JT
>
> --- In harryproa@..., "Robert" <cateran1949@y...>
> wrote:
> > John,
> > It is obvious that you have done your homework  and have thought
> > deeply and practically of the issues. Short of super cooled super
> > conductors or heavy weight copper cables the more compact the
> > better.  Possibly the extra height of the centre of mass of the
> > batteries could encourage hobby horsing against low down central
in
> > the lw hull. There is heaps of righting stability so resistance
to
> > hobby horsing giving greater comfort and allowing the boat to be
> > driven harder as well as  giving cleaner flow over the sails and
> > therefore better drive to drag on the sails may be more important
> for
> > driving to windward than the extra stability. It would also be
less
> > strain on the boat overall while punching slop.
> >      Taking this concept to the extreme, I came to thinking of a
> deep
> > pod like a submarine to actually sit under the water with a slim
> > access conning tower. The whole structure sitting just to ww of
> > centre, centre of mass sitting at centre of bouyancy.  Maybe even
> go
> > the whole hog and have electrically operated stabilising
hydrofoils
> > coupled to sensors on the bows. Unfortunately, it would probably
be
> a
> > nightmare for maintenance and extra skin friction for low speed
> > sailing.
> >
> > Robert
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In harryproa@..., "jjtctaylor"
<jtaylor412@c...>
> > wrote:
> > > Robert,
> > >
> > > Of course you can always put batteries in an optimal location.
> > > But optimization has "some" considerations.  Outboard is where
> > > we live so they take up space.  Since they are a "huge" power
> > > bank they have to be connected into your power plan.  Electric
> > > drives take a lot of current so the farther away the batteries,
> the
> > > more power losss there will be in the cables plus the cables
> > > themselves are large gage which also adds weight.
> > >
> > > If you want to add other "systems" to make best use of this
bank
> > > of power then they too should be near the source.  Inverters,
> > > generators, distribution panels all find favor being closer to
> the
> > > batteries.  All may be something you add later, but they need
> > > space.
> > >
> > > The weight of this bank of batteries does give the designer
> > > flexibility to insure fore-aft balance is mantained.  They
don't
> > > change weight like water tanks and the sizeable mass can be
> > > moved about some to get the bows level on final install.
> > >
> > > Lastly a final "big" consideration is how far can the electric
> > motor
> > > controller be distant from the electric outboards.  The motor
> > > controllers handle the current to drives.  They should be close
> to
> > > the motors and not too far from the batteries.  Solomon drives
> > > require the motor controller to be not farther than 6 feet.
All
> > > controllers are susceptable to noice interference and are best
> > > kept close to the drives.  Even your HF radio can wreak havoc
on
> > > an electric drive.
> > >
> > > I know the "best" weight location is the windward pod.  My
> electric
> > > drive will be close to the LW side and works for me to keep all
> > > those systems in the LW hull.   The current Visionnary under
> > > construction in Australia has two drives located near the WW
> > > hull.  So with that arrangement if you can spare the space then
> > > the WW hull could be a good choice.  I agree drippy is bad but
> > > space on the WW side remains an issue unless we add some.
> > > And you are correct they have to be somewhat central to prevent
> > > hobby-horse.
> > >
> > > REgards,
> > >
> > > JT
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In harryproa@..., "Robert"
> > > <cateran1949@y...> wrote:
> > > > -Could the 200 odd kg of batteries and the drive be kept in a
> > > pod ,
> > > > keeping the weight more outboard and the centre of drive more
> > > central
> > > > and keeping the electricity well clear of any dripping masts.-
-
> > In
> > > > harryproa@..., "jjtctaylor" <jtaylor412@c...>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > Hi ya Col.........
> > > > >
> > > > > I have known about ETEK for over a year.  After doing a
bunch
> > > of
> > > > > digging found out they have about half the torque at max
> > > output,
> > > > > as a Solomon ST-37.  Yes they are going to heat up a bunch
> > > > > trying to overprop an ETEK.  In addition they run at 3600
rpm
> > > and
> > > > > have to be geared down to something useable.   They are
> > > rated
> > > > > at 6HP but only at max rpm, the torque ramps like a fuel
> > > powered
> > > > > engine so they lack grunt power a low speed.
> > > > >
> > > > > The big weight is not the engine (motor) but the
batteries.
> > > The
> > > > > motors are not more efficient so watts consumed is the
> > > same as
> > > > > supplied by the batteries, no matter whose motor it is.
Want
> > > to
> > > > > drive a Visionarry boat at 10 knots,  it will take about 3-
> 4KW
> > > per
> > > > > hour.  Battery banks have to be at least double that size
> > > cause
> > > > > current released drops significantly after 50% capacity is
> > > spent,
> > > > > plus it isn't good for the batteries.  So you will need at
> > least
> > > > 6KW
> > > > > in batteries, just to run an hour.  A 60lb battery supplies
> > about
> > > > > 1KW.  You will need not less than 6 to run an hour.
> > > > >
> > > > > Doesn't matter 48V, 60V or 144V, you still need that kind
of
> > > > > capacity to drive the boat.  I would not have anything less
> > > cause
> > > > > you never know when going fast is needed.
> > > > >
> > > > > Not sure ETEK is sufficiently marinized.  Need to know if
it
> > > will
> > > > > run if soaked (immersed) in salt water.  Overheat is a real
> > > issue
> > > > > so not sure how the ventilation is handled.
> > > > >
> > > > > Granted the motor is cheaper, but life is full of choices
and
> > > > risks.
> > > > > Have not seen the ETEK commercially used anywhere
> > > except
> > > > > lake outboards.   I wouldn't give up on 'em but wait till
> Myles
> > > has
> > > > > the issues resolved and you are prepared to accept the
> > > battery
> > > > > mass required.  Lots of folks complain bitterly about
anemic
> > > > > outboards, don't want to have anemic electric outboards.
> > > Happy
> > > > > peppy boating sure beats a drifter.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > JT
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi John,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Have you considered a couple of Etek motors instead of
> > > the
> > > > > Solomon
> > > > > > solution?
> > > > > > The advantages as I see them are:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -Less weight
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -Similar power (if a cooling cowl with fan is employed)-
> > > > > > see Myles Twete's site,mentioned at-
> > > > > >
> > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/electricboats/message/2478
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -Better manoeverability - able to "turn on a dime"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -Less cost (much less) - a spare motor could even be
> > > included
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You could still drive 16" propellors if you used a 4:1
> > > gearbox,
> > > > or
> > > > > > equivalent pulleys.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Col Campey

,





   Plus MY workbench (fold down table) !  Boss gets the
> galley, I get my own hull and at least 10KW for my fan.

Married bliss?

robert

Yes sir,

The submarine pod would be extreme and agree the maintenance would be
duties of a small child.  Of course the pod would take added weight
just for the pod supporting structure. Some strengthening and changes
to the overall system may be needed as the pod itself will impart
some forces not in the original design.

Foils have been a mess for designers.  They add drag at low speed, at
mid speed they create lift reducing drag but at higher speeds the
mechanics of foil design cannot handle the loads and they break, like
dragging a soda straw though jello.

Not sure a Visionarry will get the speed necessary to make foils do
something practical.  I am sure Rob will get the Elementary up to
tripping speed.  But should not yet cast aside ideas to make more
effective use of a weight distribution.  Don't forget many cruiser
types will opt for a diesel genset 6-10KW as back up for the
batteries.  No you don't want to reduce your battery bank just cause
you have a genset.  Ideally the genset should run very infrequently
and only when the sailing regen is insufficient due to calm airs.
Otherwise the generator would run too often and you batt bank cycle
too often, both are wearing things out too soon.

So you have 200-300 kg of batteries, AND 150-250 Kg genset to
balance.  My plan was to have them in the LW hull on either side of
the mast stub about 2M distant from the mast itself.  (2M spacing) is
the lightning kill zone near the mast.  I would work with Rob & Mark
to get the balance right with the structural changes to support the
bank and genset.  Inverter and electrical distribution frame would go
in there too,  Plus MY workbench (fold down table) !  Boss gets the
galley, I get my own hull and at least 10KW for my fan.

The other option was in to put all this stuff in large storage boxes
on the LW side of the WW hull.  Service maintenance would be done
from the outside.  But that puts a lot of weight at a higher CG and
added stresses to the crossbeams.  But always welcome other
suggestions.

Regards,

JT

--- In harryproa@..., "Robert" <cateran1949@y...>
wrote:
> John,
> It is obvious that you have done your homework  and have thought
> deeply and practically of the issues. Short of super cooled super
> conductors or heavy weight copper cables the more compact the
> better.  Possibly the extra height of the centre of mass of the
> batteries could encourage hobby horsing against low down central in
> the lw hull. There is heaps of righting stability so resistance to
> hobby horsing giving greater comfort and allowing the boat to be
> driven harder as well as  giving cleaner flow over the sails and
> therefore better drive to drag on the sails may be more important
for
> driving to windward than the extra stability. It would also be less
> strain on the boat overall while punching slop.
>      Taking this concept to the extreme, I came to thinking of a
deep
> pod like a submarine to actually sit under the water with a slim
> access conning tower. The whole structure sitting just to ww of
> centre, centre of mass sitting at centre of bouyancy.  Maybe even
go
> the whole hog and have electrically operated stabilising hydrofoils
> coupled to sensors on the bows. Unfortunately, it would probably be
a
> nightmare for maintenance and extra skin friction for low speed
> sailing.
>
> Robert
>
>
>
> --- In harryproa@..., "jjtctaylor" <jtaylor412@c...>
> wrote:
> > Robert,
> >
> > Of course you can always put batteries in an optimal location.
> > But optimization has "some" considerations.  Outboard is where
> > we live so they take up space.  Since they are a "huge" power
> > bank they have to be connected into your power plan.  Electric
> > drives take a lot of current so the farther away the batteries,
the
> > more power losss there will be in the cables plus the cables
> > themselves are large gage which also adds weight.
> >
> > If you want to add other "systems" to make best use of this bank
> > of power then they too should be near the source.  Inverters,
> > generators, distribution panels all find favor being closer to
the
> > batteries.  All may be something you add later, but they need
> > space.
> >
> > The weight of this bank of batteries does give the designer
> > flexibility to insure fore-aft balance is mantained.  They don't
> > change weight like water tanks and the sizeable mass can be
> > moved about some to get the bows level on final install.
> >
> > Lastly a final "big" consideration is how far can the electric
> motor
> > controller be distant from the electric outboards.  The motor
> > controllers handle the current to drives.  They should be close
to
> > the motors and not too far from the batteries.  Solomon drives
> > require the motor controller to be not farther than 6 feet.  All
> > controllers are susceptable to noice interference and are best
> > kept close to the drives.  Even your HF radio can wreak havoc on
> > an electric drive.
> >
> > I know the "best" weight location is the windward pod.  My
electric
> > drive will be close to the LW side and works for me to keep all
> > those systems in the LW hull.   The current Visionnary under
> > construction in Australia has two drives located near the WW
> > hull.  So with that arrangement if you can spare the space then
> > the WW hull could be a good choice.  I agree drippy is bad but
> > space on the WW side remains an issue unless we add some.
> > And you are correct they have to be somewhat central to prevent
> > hobby-horse.
> >
> > REgards,
> >
> > JT
> >
> >
> > --- In harryproa@..., "Robert"
> > <cateran1949@y...> wrote:
> > > -Could the 200 odd kg of batteries and the drive be kept in a
> > pod ,
> > > keeping the weight more outboard and the centre of drive more
> > central
> > > and keeping the electricity well clear of any dripping masts.--
> In
> > > harryproa@..., "jjtctaylor" <jtaylor412@c...>
> > wrote:
> > > > Hi ya Col.........
> > > >
> > > > I have known about ETEK for over a year.  After doing a bunch
> > of
> > > > digging found out they have about half the torque at max
> > output,
> > > > as a Solomon ST-37.  Yes they are going to heat up a bunch
> > > > trying to overprop an ETEK.  In addition they run at 3600 rpm
> > and
> > > > have to be geared down to something useable.   They are
> > rated
> > > > at 6HP but only at max rpm, the torque ramps like a fuel
> > powered
> > > > engine so they lack grunt power a low speed.
> > > >
> > > > The big weight is not the engine (motor) but the batteries.
> > The
> > > > motors are not more efficient so watts consumed is the
> > same as
> > > > supplied by the batteries, no matter whose motor it is.  Want
> > to
> > > > drive a Visionarry boat at 10 knots,  it will take about 3-
4KW
> > per
> > > > hour.  Battery banks have to be at least double that size
> > cause
> > > > current released drops significantly after 50% capacity is
> > spent,
> > > > plus it isn't good for the batteries.  So you will need at
> least
> > > 6KW
> > > > in batteries, just to run an hour.  A 60lb battery supplies
> about
> > > > 1KW.  You will need not less than 6 to run an hour.
> > > >
> > > > Doesn't matter 48V, 60V or 144V, you still need that kind of
> > > > capacity to drive the boat.  I would not have anything less
> > cause
> > > > you never know when going fast is needed.
> > > >
> > > > Not sure ETEK is sufficiently marinized.  Need to know if it
> > will
> > > > run if soaked (immersed) in salt water.  Overheat is a real
> > issue
> > > > so not sure how the ventilation is handled.
> > > >
> > > > Granted the motor is cheaper, but life is full of choices and
> > > risks.
> > > > Have not seen the ETEK commercially used anywhere
> > except
> > > > lake outboards.   I wouldn't give up on 'em but wait till
Myles
> > has
> > > > the issues resolved and you are prepared to accept the
> > battery
> > > > mass required.  Lots of folks complain bitterly about anemic
> > > > outboards, don't want to have anemic electric outboards.
> > Happy
> > > > peppy boating sure beats a drifter.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > JT
> > > > > >
> > > > > Hi John,
> > > > >
> > > > > Have you considered a couple of Etek motors instead of
> > the
> > > > Solomon
> > > > > solution?
> > > > > The advantages as I see them are:
> > > > >
> > > > > -Less weight
> > > > >
> > > > > -Similar power (if a cooling cowl with fan is employed)-
> > > > > see Myles Twete's site,mentioned at-
> > > > >
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/electricboats/message/2478
> > > > >
> > > > > -Better manoeverability - able to "turn on a dime"
> > > > >
> > > > > -Less cost (much less) - a spare motor could even be
> > included
> > > > >
> > > > > You could still drive 16" propellors if you used a 4:1
> > gearbox,
> > > or
> > > > > equivalent pulleys.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > Col Campey

John,
It is obvious that you have done your homework  and have thought
deeply and practically of the issues. Short of super cooled super
conductors or heavy weight copper cables the more compact the
better.  Possibly the extra height of the centre of mass of the
batteries could encourage hobby horsing against low down central in
the lw hull. There is heaps of righting stability so resistance to
hobby horsing giving greater comfort and allowing the boat to be
driven harder as well as  giving cleaner flow over the sails and
therefore better drive to drag on the sails may be more important for
driving to windward than the extra stability. It would also be less
strain on the boat overall while punching slop.
      Taking this concept to the extreme, I came to thinking of a deep
pod like a submarine to actually sit under the water with a slim
access conning tower. The whole structure sitting just to ww of
centre, centre of mass sitting at centre of bouyancy.  Maybe even go
the whole hog and have electrically operated stabilising hydrofoils
coupled to sensors on the bows. Unfortunately, it would probably be a
nightmare for maintenance and extra skin friction for low speed
sailing.

Robert



--- In harryproa@..., "jjtctaylor" <jtaylor412@c...>
wrote:
> Robert,
>
> Of course you can always put batteries in an optimal location.
> But optimization has "some" considerations.  Outboard is where
> we live so they take up space.  Since they are a "huge" power
> bank they have to be connected into your power plan.  Electric
> drives take a lot of current so the farther away the batteries, the
> more power losss there will be in the cables plus the cables
> themselves are large gage which also adds weight.
>
> If you want to add other "systems" to make best use of this bank
> of power then they too should be near the source.  Inverters,
> generators, distribution panels all find favor being closer to the
> batteries.  All may be something you add later, but they need
> space.
>
> The weight of this bank of batteries does give the designer
> flexibility to insure fore-aft balance is mantained.  They don't
> change weight like water tanks and the sizeable mass can be
> moved about some to get the bows level on final install.
>
> Lastly a final "big" consideration is how far can the electric
motor
> controller be distant from the electric outboards.  The motor
> controllers handle the current to drives.  They should be close to
> the motors and not too far from the batteries.  Solomon drives
> require the motor controller to be not farther than 6 feet.  All
> controllers are susceptable to noice interference and are best
> kept close to the drives.  Even your HF radio can wreak havoc on
> an electric drive.
>
> I know the "best" weight location is the windward pod.  My electric
> drive will be close to the LW side and works for me to keep all
> those systems in the LW hull.   The current Visionnary under
> construction in Australia has two drives located near the WW
> hull.  So with that arrangement if you can spare the space then
> the WW hull could be a good choice.  I agree drippy is bad but
> space on the WW side remains an issue unless we add some.
> And you are correct they have to be somewhat central to prevent
> hobby-horse.
>
> REgards,
>
> JT
>
>
> --- In harryproa@..., "Robert"
> <cateran1949@y...> wrote:
> > -Could the 200 odd kg of batteries and the drive be kept in a
> pod ,
> > keeping the weight more outboard and the centre of drive more
> central
> > and keeping the electricity well clear of any dripping masts.--
In
> > harryproa@..., "jjtctaylor" <jtaylor412@c...>
> wrote:
> > > Hi ya Col.........
> > >
> > > I have known about ETEK for over a year.  After doing a bunch
> of
> > > digging found out they have about half the torque at max
> output,
> > > as a Solomon ST-37.  Yes they are going to heat up a bunch
> > > trying to overprop an ETEK.  In addition they run at 3600 rpm
> and
> > > have to be geared down to something useable.   They are
> rated
> > > at 6HP but only at max rpm, the torque ramps like a fuel
> powered
> > > engine so they lack grunt power a low speed.
> > >
> > > The big weight is not the engine (motor) but the batteries.
> The
> > > motors are not more efficient so watts consumed is the
> same as
> > > supplied by the batteries, no matter whose motor it is.  Want
> to
> > > drive a Visionarry boat at 10 knots,  it will take about 3-4KW
> per
> > > hour.  Battery banks have to be at least double that size
> cause
> > > current released drops significantly after 50% capacity is
> spent,
> > > plus it isn't good for the batteries.  So you will need at
least
> > 6KW
> > > in batteries, just to run an hour.  A 60lb battery supplies
about
> > > 1KW.  You will need not less than 6 to run an hour.
> > >
> > > Doesn't matter 48V, 60V or 144V, you still need that kind of
> > > capacity to drive the boat.  I would not have anything less
> cause
> > > you never know when going fast is needed.
> > >
> > > Not sure ETEK is sufficiently marinized.  Need to know if it
> will
> > > run if soaked (immersed) in salt water.  Overheat is a real
> issue
> > > so not sure how the ventilation is handled.
> > >
> > > Granted the motor is cheaper, but life is full of choices and
> > risks.
> > > Have not seen the ETEK commercially used anywhere
> except
> > > lake outboards.   I wouldn't give up on 'em but wait till Myles
> has
> > > the issues resolved and you are prepared to accept the
> battery
> > > mass required.  Lots of folks complain bitterly about anemic
> > > outboards, don't want to have anemic electric outboards.
> Happy
> > > peppy boating sure beats a drifter.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > JT
> > > > >
> > > > Hi John,
> > > >
> > > > Have you considered a couple of Etek motors instead of
> the
> > > Solomon
> > > > solution?
> > > > The advantages as I see them are:
> > > >
> > > > -Less weight
> > > >
> > > > -Similar power (if a cooling cowl with fan is employed)-
> > > > see Myles Twete's site,mentioned at-
> > > >
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/electricboats/message/2478
> > > >
> > > > -Better manoeverability - able to "turn on a dime"
> > > >
> > > > -Less cost (much less) - a spare motor could even be
> included
> > > >
> > > > You could still drive 16" propellors if you used a 4:1
> gearbox,
> > or
> > > > equivalent pulleys.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Col Campey

Robert,

Of course you can always put batteries in an optimal location.
But optimization has "some" considerations.  Outboard is where
we live so they take up space.  Since they are a "huge" power
bank they have to be connected into your power plan.  Electric
drives take a lot of current so the farther away the batteries, the
more power losss there will be in the cables plus the cables
themselves are large gage which also adds weight.

If you want to add other "systems" to make best use of this bank
of power then they too should be near the source.  Inverters,
generators, distribution panels all find favor being closer to the
batteries.  All may be something you add later, but they need
space.

The weight of this bank of batteries does give the designer
flexibility to insure fore-aft balance is mantained.  They don't
change weight like water tanks and the sizeable mass can be
moved about some to get the bows level on final install.

Lastly a final "big" consideration is how far can the electric motor
controller be distant from the electric outboards.  The motor
controllers handle the current to drives.  They should be close to
the motors and not too far from the batteries.  Solomon drives
require the motor controller to be not farther than 6 feet.  All
controllers are susceptable to noice interference and are best
kept close to the drives.  Even your HF radio can wreak havoc on
an electric drive.

I know the "best" weight location is the windward pod.  My electric
drive will be close to the LW side and works for me to keep all
those systems in the LW hull.   The current Visionnary under
construction in Australia has two drives located near the WW
hull.  So with that arrangement if you can spare the space then
the WW hull could be a good choice.  I agree drippy is bad but
space on the WW side remains an issue unless we add some.
And you are correct they have to be somewhat central to prevent
hobby-horse.

REgards,

JT


--- In harryproa@..., "Robert"
<cateran1949@y...> wrote:
> -Could the 200 odd kg of batteries and the drive be kept in a
pod ,
> keeping the weight more outboard and the centre of drive more
central
> and keeping the electricity well clear of any dripping masts.-- In
> harryproa@..., "jjtctaylor" <jtaylor412@c...>
wrote:
> > Hi ya Col.........
> >
> > I have known about ETEK for over a year.  After doing a bunch
of
> > digging found out they have about half the torque at max
output,
> > as a Solomon ST-37.  Yes they are going to heat up a bunch
> > trying to overprop an ETEK.  In addition they run at 3600 rpm
and
> > have to be geared down to something useable.   They are
rated
> > at 6HP but only at max rpm, the torque ramps like a fuel
powered
> > engine so they lack grunt power a low speed.
> >
> > The big weight is not the engine (motor) but the batteries.
The
> > motors are not more efficient so watts consumed is the
same as
> > supplied by the batteries, no matter whose motor it is.  Want
to
> > drive a Visionarry boat at 10 knots,  it will take about 3-4KW
per
> > hour.  Battery banks have to be at least double that size
cause
> > current released drops significantly after 50% capacity is
spent,
> > plus it isn't good for the batteries.  So you will need at least
> 6KW
> > in batteries, just to run an hour.  A 60lb battery supplies about
> > 1KW.  You will need not less than 6 to run an hour.
> >
> > Doesn't matter 48V, 60V or 144V, you still need that kind of
> > capacity to drive the boat.  I would not have anything less
cause
> > you never know when going fast is needed.
> >
> > Not sure ETEK is sufficiently marinized.  Need to know if it
will
> > run if soaked (immersed) in salt water.  Overheat is a real
issue
> > so not sure how the ventilation is handled.
> >
> > Granted the motor is cheaper, but life is full of choices and
> risks.
> > Have not seen the ETEK commercially used anywhere
except
> > lake outboards.   I wouldn't give up on 'em but wait till Myles
has
> > the issues resolved and you are prepared to accept the
battery
> > mass required.  Lots of folks complain bitterly about anemic
> > outboards, don't want to have anemic electric outboards.
Happy
> > peppy boating sure beats a drifter.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > JT
> > > >
> > > Hi John,
> > >
> > > Have you considered a couple of Etek motors instead of
the
> > Solomon
> > > solution?
> > > The advantages as I see them are:
> > >
> > > -Less weight
> > >
> > > -Similar power (if a cooling cowl with fan is employed)-
> > > see Myles Twete's site,mentioned at-
> > >
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/electricboats/message/2478
> > >
> > > -Better manoeverability - able to "turn on a dime"
> > >
> > > -Less cost (much less) - a spare motor could even be
included
> > >
> > > You could still drive 16" propellors if you used a 4:1
gearbox,
> or
> > > equivalent pulleys.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Col Campey

-Could the 200 odd kg of batteries and the drive be kept in a pod ,
keeping the weight more outboard and the centre of drive more central
and keeping the electricity well clear of any dripping masts.-- In
harryproa@..., "jjtctaylor" <jtaylor412@c...> wrote:
> Hi ya Col.........
>
> I have known about ETEK for over a year.  After doing a bunch of
> digging found out they have about half the torque at max output,
> as a Solomon ST-37.  Yes they are going to heat up a bunch
> trying to overprop an ETEK.  In addition they run at 3600 rpm and
> have to be geared down to something useable.   They are rated
> at 6HP but only at max rpm, the torque ramps like a fuel powered
> engine so they lack grunt power a low speed.
>
> The big weight is not the engine (motor) but the batteries.   The
> motors are not more efficient so watts consumed is the same as
> supplied by the batteries, no matter whose motor it is.  Want to
> drive a Visionarry boat at 10 knots,  it will take about 3-4KW per
> hour.  Battery banks have to be at least double that size cause
> current released drops significantly after 50% capacity is spent,
> plus it isn't good for the batteries.  So you will need at least
6KW
> in batteries, just to run an hour.  A 60lb battery supplies about
> 1KW.  You will need not less than 6 to run an hour.
>
> Doesn't matter 48V, 60V or 144V, you still need that kind of
> capacity to drive the boat.  I would not have anything less cause
> you never know when going fast is needed.
>
> Not sure ETEK is sufficiently marinized.  Need to know if it will
> run if soaked (immersed) in salt water.  Overheat is a real issue
> so not sure how the ventilation is handled.
>
> Granted the motor is cheaper, but life is full of choices and
risks.
> Have not seen the ETEK commercially used anywhere except
> lake outboards.   I wouldn't give up on 'em but wait till Myles has
> the issues resolved and you are prepared to accept the battery
> mass required.  Lots of folks complain bitterly about anemic
> outboards, don't want to have anemic electric outboards.  Happy
> peppy boating sure beats a drifter.
>
> Regards,
>
> JT
> > >
> > Hi John,
> >
> > Have you considered a couple of Etek motors instead of the
> Solomon
> > solution?
> > The advantages as I see them are:
> >
> > -Less weight
> >
> > -Similar power (if a cooling cowl with fan is employed)-
> > see Myles Twete's site,mentioned at-
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/electricboats/message/2478
> >
> > -Better manoeverability - able to "turn on a dime"
> >
> > -Less cost (much less) - a spare motor could even be included
> >
> > You could still drive 16" propellors if you used a 4:1 gearbox,
or
> > equivalent pulleys.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Col Campey

Hi ya Col.........

I have known about ETEK for over a year.  After doing a bunch of
digging found out they have about half the torque at max output,
as a Solomon ST-37.  Yes they are going to heat up a bunch
trying to overprop an ETEK.  In addition they run at 3600 rpm and
have to be geared down to something useable.   They are rated
at 6HP but only at max rpm, the torque ramps like a fuel powered
engine so they lack grunt power a low speed.

The big weight is not the engine (motor) but the batteries.   The
motors are not more efficient so watts consumed is the same as
supplied by the batteries, no matter whose motor it is.  Want to
drive a Visionarry boat at 10 knots,  it will take about 3-4KW per
hour.  Battery banks have to be at least double that size cause
current released drops significantly after 50% capacity is spent,
plus it isn't good for the batteries.  So you will need at least 6KW
in batteries, just to run an hour.  A 60lb battery supplies about
1KW.  You will need not less than 6 to run an hour.

Doesn't matter 48V, 60V or 144V, you still need that kind of
capacity to drive the boat.  I would not have anything less cause
you never know when going fast is needed.

Not sure ETEK is sufficiently marinized.  Need to know if it will
run if soaked (immersed) in salt water.  Overheat is a real issue
so not sure how the ventilation is handled.

Granted the motor is cheaper, but life is full of choices and risks.
Have not seen the ETEK commercially used anywhere except
lake outboards.   I wouldn't give up on 'em but wait till Myles has
the issues resolved and you are prepared to accept the battery
mass required.  Lots of folks complain bitterly about anemic
outboards, don't want to have anemic electric outboards.  Happy
peppy boating sure beats a drifter.

Regards,

JT
> >
> Hi John,
>
> Have you considered a couple of Etek motors instead of the
Solomon
> solution?
> The advantages as I see them are:
>
> -Less weight
>
> -Similar power (if a cooling cowl with fan is employed)-
> see Myles Twete's site,mentioned at-
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/electricboats/message/2478
>
> -Better manoeverability - able to "turn on a dime"
>
> -Less cost (much less) - a spare motor could even be included
>
> You could still drive 16" propellors if you used a 4:1 gearbox, or
> equivalent pulleys.
>
> Regards,
>
> Col Campey

--- In harryproa@..., "jjtctaylor" <jtaylor412@c...>
wrote:
> I can relate to that.  Depends on your prop pitch.  Most outboards
> are designed to go (1) way thus have their tips cupped for
> maximum thrust transfer aft.  Of course going the other way it
just
> wastes energy off the tips directing it outward.  If your prop is
> pitched with a flat pitch it should do as well fore and aft albeit
not
> as well in either direction unless you add a kort nozzle to control
> some of the lost outward thrust.  Kort nozzles do well up to 15
> about knots before the drag outweighs the advantages.
>
> I think Rob plans to play with a nozzle at some point in
> development.  However there a bunch of engineered solutions
> for manually rotating the outboard if that is your desire.
>
> I personally don't like outboards, and will opt for a single
electric
> drive.  Higher thrust to weight ratio.  Big prop 16-18 inches and
> rotating slower to get a decent bite.  Need torque to do that and
> outboards get really large to handle that.  Besides I got plenty to
> do maneuvering in tight quarters rather than try to remember
> which end has the best thrust OR having problems cause the
> prop is anemic working one direction.
>
> I gotta GOOooo in both directions or not happy in the marina.
>
> Regards,
>
> JT
>
Hi John,

Have you considered a couple of Etek motors instead of the Solomon
solution?
The advantages as I see them are:

-Less weight

-Similar power (if a cooling cowl with fan is employed)-
see Myles Twete's site,mentioned at-
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/electricboats/message/2478

-Better manoeverability - able to "turn on a dime"

-Less cost (much less) - a spare motor could even be included

You could still drive 16" propellors if you used a 4:1 gearbox, or
equivalent pulleys.

Regards,

Col Campey

----- Original Message -----

From: Robert

To: harryproa@...

Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 10:09 AM

Subject: [harryproa] motors

I recently tried to back my 5m Jarcat with an outboard. Half a knot
if I was lucky compared with 10 knots forward. Getting off a beach
with an outboard in reverse is not much fun and for a proa seems
absurd. Surely the rudder support arrangement attached to the centre
fore and aft support could be adapted to reversing the outboard. It
could be on a hinged board with the hinge line on the bottom of the
fore and aft support ie lengthways with the boat, to allow full
clearance from the water. or maybe rotating about pin on the forward
end and a sliding groove on the aft end
Robert

I can relate to that.  Depends on your prop pitch.  Most outboards
are designed to go (1) way thus have their tips cupped for
maximum thrust transfer aft.  Of course going the other way it just
wastes energy off the tips directing it outward.  If your prop is
pitched with a flat pitch it should do as well fore and aft albeit not
as well in either direction unless you add a kort nozzle to control
some of the lost outward thrust.  Kort nozzles do well up to 15
about knots before the drag outweighs the advantages.

I think Rob plans to play with a nozzle at some point in
development.  However there a bunch of engineered solutions
for manually rotating the outboard if that is your desire.

I personally don't like outboards, and will opt for a single electric
drive.  Higher thrust to weight ratio.  Big prop 16-18 inches and
rotating slower to get a decent bite.  Need torque to do that and
outboards get really large to handle that.  Besides I got plenty to
do maneuvering in tight quarters rather than try to remember
which end has the best thrust OR having problems cause the
prop is anemic working one direction.

I gotta GOOooo in both directions or not happy in the marina.

Regards,

JT

--- In harryproa@..., "Robert"
<cateran1949@y...> wrote:
> I recently tried to back my 5m Jarcat with an outboard. Half a
knot
> if I was lucky compared with 10 knots forward. Getting off a
beach
> with an outboard in reverse is not much fun and for a proa
seems
> absurd. Surely the rudder support arrangement attached to the
centre
> fore and aft support could be adapted to reversing the
outboard. It
> could be on a hinged board with the hinge line on the bottom of
the
> fore and aft support ie lengthways with the boat, to allow full
> clearance from the water. or maybe rotating about pin on the
forward
> end and a sliding groove on the aft end
> Robert

I recently tried to back my 5m Jarcat with an outboard. Half a knot
if I was lucky compared with 10 knots forward. Getting off a beach
with an outboard in reverse is not much fun and for a proa seems
absurd. Surely the rudder support arrangement attached to the centre
fore and aft support could be adapted to reversing the outboard. It
could be on a hinged board with the hinge line on the bottom of the
fore and aft support ie lengthways with the boat, to allow full
clearance from the water. or maybe rotating about pin on the forward
end and a sliding groove on the aft end
Robert

----- Original Message -----

From: jjtctaylor

To: harryproa@...

Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 11:59 AM

Subject: [harryproa] Re: Questions about Visionarry

--- In harryproa@..., "Mark Stephens"
<stephens@o...> wrote:

>
> Answers to your questions:

> 2. Propane Tanks: Where are the propane tanks for cooker and
heating
>
> to be stored? My vote is under the dinette seat and having a
drain
>
> through the hull topside.
>
> We prefer to locate them outside in a box which becomes the
cockpit seat
> back. It is well ventilated and can carry two 9kg bottles.

YES PLEASE keep the propane bottles outside.  Small leak big
boom.  Propane is heavier than air, will sink to bilge areas and
may go unnoticed.  Outside and vented outside is better.
>


>
> 5. Spray protection for the helmsperson, especially when on
the wind in
>
> the North Atlantic.: I saw mention of this subject on the Yahoo
group,
>
> but did not see a suggestion for improvement. Perhaps
improvement is
>
> not needed? If it is, the salon can be extended to form a three
sided
>
> enclosure with removable windows; more windage, less
spray.
>
> Anything is possible and this is a good solution. The saloon
can also be
> extended out to give a pilot station pointing in both directions.
The trick
> is to keep windage, weight and costs to a minimum. For our
local conditions
> this boat will just have a piece of Perspex/Lexan set vertically
between the
> wheels offering some protection to the helmsman in both
directions.

Orr take advantage of the Bimini hardtop for drop dodger
between the hardtop and the back of the cockpit seats.
>

>
> 7. Electronic autopilots: I think that after shunting they will be
>
> disoriented. Not certain about this with the wheel pilots. My
present
>
> vessel uses tiller style autopilot (Autohelm 4000), and it must
be told
>
> whether it is mounted to starboard or to port of the tiller.
Reversing
>
> sides without reorientation of the software cause exactly
incorrect
>
> response to course deviation.
>
> I think the wheel pilot will still work in the correct sense on
each shunt.
> As both wheels will be locked together before and after each
shunt only one
> pilot will be needed though will have to be disengaged during
the shunt when
> the wheels are spinning in opposite directions. Imagine
heading on a reach
> to the north, the pilot is rotating clockwise to turn east and
anticlockwise
> to turn west. after a shunt the boat is heading south, the pilot
still turns
> clockwise to go east and anticlockwise to go west. I too have
only ever had
> tiller pilots so I may be wrong about this.

Yes we will have to give the autopilot unique commands
between the two steering wheels.  On the sketch I made for
wheel controls we will need a separate independent center
sprocket for each wheel autopilot.  That means one wheel will
have cable controls to the autopilot flipped.  Not a big deal
EXCEPT if you engage both center sprockets at the same time
you will lock both wheels in fore-aft alignment.  The cables will
fight each other.  Skipper will figure this out in pretty quickly. 
Original design had one center sprocket that once engaged
prevented the other wheel from activating the autopilot at the
same time.   Unfortunately reverse directions after shunt
precludes a combined functionality.  I will look to see if there is a
double engagment prevention method.

Did you decide where to put the autopilot ?  My original reco is in
a well just inside the salon.  Motors and autopilot computers
hate water. 
>
> 8. Mast bearing: How is water to be prevented getting in around
the
>
> mast where it penetrates deck of leeward hull? I suppose that
if a
>
> water tight compartment were built around the supports in the
hull that
>
> a relatively small amount of water could be tolerated and
pumped out
>
> when convenient. However, I would like to retain ability to
visually
>
> examine the mast step, bearings, etc.
>
> We intend to put a rotating boot around the mast bearing. That
still leaves
> water running down the inside of the mast from wet halyards
etc. which can't
> be helped. A shallow dam around the maststep should stop
this small amount
> of water running along the hull.

I don't like water in my WW hull, this means I need a bilge in the
dam.   14KW at 150VDC is not appreciative of water sloshing
about.   Mr. Mark you will be welcome for first at sea test (inside)
the ww hull.  Isn't that the same place where my lightning rod
comes out to the ground plate ?  Maybe we should hold that test
for our first major lightning storm eval. 
>
> 9. Shape of Leeward hull: If the dips in the deck of the leeward
hull
>
> were eliminated in favor of a straight slope from near the mast
to the
>
> pointy end, the mould and hulls would be easier to produce ( I
think ).
>
> The cost is a slight increase in windage. Shape would more
nearly
>
> resemble the windward hull (though this neither the goal nor
necessary).
>
> Just thinking of ways to make construction easier for the
amateur
>
> buildor. I notice that your large world class racer has higher
bows and
>
> a flatter deck.
>
> Having straight slopes doesn't really help much when strip
planking although
> would be a little easier in a foam mould. It would make quite a
difference
> to the aesthetics and, as you have said, add a bit to windage.
As these
> boats have to appeal to the wider market we want them to look
as appealing
> as possible.

Flatter is better for me as it makes more headroom inside the
WW hull.  The only downside is the elevation difference in
docking, pier to hull height.  I know you were planning a single
step molded into the hull, might end up with more steps.
>
Regards,

JT

>
> *************************
> Mark Stephens
> www.harryproa.com
> stephens@o...

--- In harryproa@..., "Mark Stephens"
<stephens@o...> wrote:

>
> Answers to your questions:

> 2. Propane Tanks: Where are the propane tanks for cooker and
heating
>
> to be stored? My vote is under the dinette seat and having a
drain
>
> through the hull topside.
>
> We prefer to locate them outside in a box which becomes the
cockpit seat
> back. It is well ventilated and can carry two 9kg bottles.

YES PLEASE keep the propane bottles outside.  Small leak big
boom.  Propane is heavier than air, will sink to bilge areas and
may go unnoticed.  Outside and vented outside is better.
>


>
> 5. Spray protection for the helmsperson, especially when on
the wind in
>
> the North Atlantic.: I saw mention of this subject on the Yahoo
group,
>
> but did not see a suggestion for improvement. Perhaps
improvement is
>
> not needed? If it is, the salon can be extended to form a three
sided
>
> enclosure with removable windows; more windage, less
spray.
>
> Anything is possible and this is a good solution. The saloon
can also be
> extended out to give a pilot station pointing in both directions.
The trick
> is to keep windage, weight and costs to a minimum. For our
local conditions
> this boat will just have a piece of Perspex/Lexan set vertically
between the
> wheels offering some protection to the helmsman in both
directions.

Orr take advantage of the Bimini hardtop for drop dodger
between the hardtop and the back of the cockpit seats.
>

>
> 7. Electronic autopilots: I think that after shunting they will be
>
> disoriented. Not certain about this with the wheel pilots. My
present
>
> vessel uses tiller style autopilot (Autohelm 4000), and it must
be told
>
> whether it is mounted to starboard or to port of the tiller.
Reversing
>
> sides without reorientation of the software cause exactly
incorrect
>
> response to course deviation.
>
> I think the wheel pilot will still work in the correct sense on
each shunt.
> As both wheels will be locked together before and after each
shunt only one
> pilot will be needed though will have to be disengaged during
the shunt when
> the wheels are spinning in opposite directions. Imagine
heading on a reach
> to the north, the pilot is rotating clockwise to turn east and
anticlockwise
> to turn west. after a shunt the boat is heading south, the pilot
still turns
> clockwise to go east and anticlockwise to go west. I too have
only ever had
> tiller pilots so I may be wrong about this.

Yes we will have to give the autopilot unique commands
between the two steering wheels.  On the sketch I made for
wheel controls we will need a separate independent center
sprocket for each wheel autopilot.  That means one wheel will
have cable controls to the autopilot flipped.  Not a big deal
EXCEPT if you engage both center sprockets at the same time
you will lock both wheels in fore-aft alignment.  The cables will
fight each other.  Skipper will figure this out in pretty quickly.
Original design had one center sprocket that once engaged
prevented the other wheel from activating the autopilot at the
same time.   Unfortunately reverse directions after shunt
precludes a combined functionality.  I will look to see if there is a
double engagment prevention method.

Did you decide where to put the autopilot ?  My original reco is in
a well just inside the salon.  Motors and autopilot computers
hate water.
>
> 8. Mast bearing: How is water to be prevented getting in around
the
>
> mast where it penetrates deck of leeward hull? I suppose that
if a
>
> water tight compartment were built around the supports in the
hull that
>
> a relatively small amount of water could be tolerated and
pumped out
>
> when convenient. However, I would like to retain ability to
visually
>
> examine the mast step, bearings, etc.
>
> We intend to put a rotating boot around the mast bearing. That
still leaves
> water running down the inside of the mast from wet halyards
etc. which can't
> be helped. A shallow dam around the maststep should stop
this small amount
> of water running along the hull.

I don't like water in my WW hull, this means I need a bilge in the
dam.   14KW at 150VDC is not appreciative of water sloshing
about.   Mr. Mark you will be welcome for first at sea test (inside)
the ww hull.  Isn't that the same place where my lightning rod
comes out to the ground plate ?  Maybe we should hold that test
for our first major lightning storm eval.
>
> 9. Shape of Leeward hull: If the dips in the deck of the leeward
hull
>
> were eliminated in favor of a straight slope from near the mast
to the
>
> pointy end, the mould and hulls would be easier to produce ( I
think ).
>
> The cost is a slight increase in windage. Shape would more
nearly
>
> resemble the windward hull (though this neither the goal nor
necessary).
>
> Just thinking of ways to make construction easier for the
amateur
>
> buildor. I notice that your large world class racer has higher
bows and
>
> a flatter deck.
>
> Having straight slopes doesn't really help much when strip
planking although
> would be a little easier in a foam mould. It would make quite a
difference
> to the aesthetics and, as you have said, add a bit to windage.
As these
> boats have to appeal to the wider market we want them to look
as appealing
> as possible.

Flatter is better for me as it makes more headroom inside the
WW hull.  The only downside is the elevation difference in
docking, pier to hull height.  I know you were planning a single
step molded into the hull, might end up with more steps.
>
Regards,

JT

>
> *************************
> Mark Stephens
> www.harryproa.com
> stephens@o...

-Thanks Mark,
My thoughts were that they need to be clear of the water at low
speeds when skin friction is more important, especiallly with the
holes in the lower bracket, but after that there should be enough
power to drive them through. When the chop and waves are  big enough
to start submerging the brackets, the changes in immersed frontal
area would probably be causing more drag than the brackets but less
drag than most boats because of the high prismatic coefficient and
close to vertical sides. The damping moment of the brackets may
actually reduce drag from this component and improve sail efficiency.
I feel that they would be less drag than kick up centreboards and
much less drag than a daggerboard and case after it has hit somthing
hard at speed.

I tried to imagine a set up so that the lower brackets could provide
a planing surface to lift the bows but the angle suitable at high
loads is too steep for low loads and would create too much drag and
possibly lead to hobby horsing.
I am assuming that going higher for the top bracket has its problems
such as interference with crossbeam clearance or insufficient support.

   -- In harryproa@..., "Mark Stephens" <stephens@o...>
wrote:
> Hi Robert,
>
> Good observations. As you know designing is always a balance of
compromises.
> The loads on these rudder daggerboards is huge with 2 metres of the
blade
> underwater. We decided the brackets have to be as low as possible
to reduce
> the leverage and have a decent case length, that meant having it go
> underwater when hard pressed. We may have been able to raise it
slightly but
> there will always be times when the lower bracket is emersed so we
stayed
> with the present compromise. We shall see. I suspect the bottom of
most
> catamaran dagger cases added to the drag of their rudders would not
be much
> less than our 2 in 1 rudders.
>
> Regards,
> Mark
>
>
> *************************
> Mark Stephens
> www.harryproa.com
> stephens@o...
> (int. 61) 02 66552016
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Robert
>   To: harryproa@...
>   Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 5:48 PM
>   Subject: [harryproa] rudder supports and interference
>
>
>   I was looking again at the rudder supports and realised that when
the
>   sails and boat are loaded up then the lower support would be
clipping
>   the waves. I understand the need for the holes but wondered if
there
>   is significant drag created by the supports. I was also wondering
>   about the extra drag created by extra bouyancy forward but
allowing
>   better clearance for the rudders supports under load, against the
>   drag created by wave clipping.
>   Robert
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
> --
>   Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>     a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
>     http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/harryproa/
>
>     b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>     harryproa-unsubscribe@...
>
>     c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Robert,

Good observations. As you know designing is always a balance of compromises.
The loads on these rudder daggerboards is huge with 2 metres of the blade
underwater. We decided the brackets have to be as low as possible to reduce
the leverage and have a decent case length, that meant having it go
underwater when hard pressed. We may have been able to raise it slightly but
there will always be times when the lower bracket is emersed so we stayed
with the present compromise. We shall see. I suspect the bottom of most
catamaran dagger cases added to the drag of their rudders would not be much
less than our 2 in 1 rudders.

Regards,
Mark


*************************
Mark Stephens
www.harryproa.com
stephens@...
(int. 61) 02 66552016
   ----- Original Message -----
   From: Robert
   To: harryproa@...
   Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 5:48 PM
   Subject: [harryproa] rudder supports and interference


   I was looking again at the rudder supports and realised that when the
   sails and boat are loaded up then the lower support would be clipping
   the waves. I understand the need for the holes but wondered if there
   is significant drag created by the supports. I was also wondering
   about the extra drag created by extra bouyancy forward but allowing
   better clearance for the rudders supports under load, against the
   drag created by wave clipping.
   Robert



----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
   Yahoo! Groups Links

     a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
     http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/harryproa/

     b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
     harryproa-unsubscribe@...

     c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]