This application uses the deployable sandwich-like shell disclosed in my U.S. patent application Ser. No. 15/131,983, filed 2016 Apr. 18, which is incorporated by reference.
The following is a tabulation of some prior art that presently appears relevant:
Wind sail technology has been in development for thousands of years. Thus, the present discussion must be limited to those developments in sail technology represented by relatively recent patent records. Conventional sails which are attached to a spar or standing rigging, constructed of fabric, and associated fittings and lines are not discussed. Also, rigid or nearly rigid single sails, as well as Magnus effect devices are not discussed.
Four major themes are discussed: (a) efficiency—relative ability of sail to derive driving force from a given relative wind velocity, (b) economy—simplicity and cost effectiveness of the sail design, (c) safety—ability of sail to be quickly furled or stowed before or during dangerous wind conditions and (d) operability—degree to which sail configuration changes may be automated and human interaction minimized.
During the past 150 years, commercial sail operations have effectively ceased. A sail design that scores highly in the above four categories would allow shippers to rebuild pure sail or sail augmented profitable commercial operations. In addition, competitive and purely recreational sailing would benefit from such a sail design.
(a1) Relative wind velocity (direction and strength) greatly effect sail efficiency. If the relative wind direction is from a direction “abaft the beam” (generally from the rear to front of the ship), any design that generates a large drag force, such as the “square rigger” sail is efficient. As true wind direction becomes more “abeam” (normal to ship fore-aft axis), relative wind direction shifts to a more forward direction where the shape of the sail horizontal cross-section becomes important. All of the patent and patent application references cited above disclose sail designs that have a more-or-less “airfoil” horizontal cross-sectional shape. In this context, an airfoil shape is that of a typical low-speed airplane wing cross-section. For wind speeds encountered for normal sailing conditions, the low-speed airfoil shape is efficient in that it generates large lift and low drag aerodynamic forces for normal angles of attack (angle of relative wind in relation to the luff-leech axis of the sail). Angle of attack is adjusted (sail rotated with respect to the relative wind) so that the resultant lift-drag vector is maximized for the ship's course direction.
(a2) U.S. patent application 20150033998 discloses a rigid airfoil shaped sail which is hinged to allow entry to shipping ports. In this design, the sail cross-section is symmetrical—the wing cross-section has no camber resulting in decreased efficiency for either starboard or port tacks (relative wind direction from either the right or left, respectively, for an observer looking forward). In addition, U.S. Pat. No. 6,431,100 discloses a semi-rigid symmetrical camber-less sail design. Airfoils with reversible camber designs are important so that they are equally efficient for both relative wind tack directions. The remainder of the cited references disclose reversible camber airfoil designs. These designs range from complicated (several interconnecting rigid panels, U.S. Pat. No. 3,934,533) to relatively simple (fabric skins with collapsible rigid internal stiffeners, U.S. Pat. No. 7,114,456). U.S. Pat. No. 4,625,671 discloses a simply constructed reversible camber airfoil design reminiscent of the (not very efficient) “Wright flyer” wing profile.
(b1) Economical evaluation of sail design prior art is subjective. Two measures are design simplicity and ease of manufacture of the sail. Four of the cited patents are based on revisions of conventional sail design. The previously mentioned U.S. Pat. No. 4,625,671 discloses a relatively conventional fabric sail design containing only a few additional elements required for the airfoil shape of the sail cross-section. Three U.S. patents disclose designs of double-walled fabric with differing means of varying the cross-section shape. U.S. Pat. No. 6,141,809 utilizes induced air pressure for inflation and variation of the sail shape. Previously cited U.S. Pat. No. 7,114,456 utilizes hinged collapsible internal rigid stiffeners for maintenance of cross-section shape. U.S. Pat. No. 4,064,821 utilizes mechanically connected internal spars whose lateral displacements induce sail shape change.
(b2) More complex fabric based designs are disclosed in U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,431,100 and 4,848,258. The former utilizes a single large fabric sail with batten-like internal semi-rigid inserts for maintenance of non-variable sail cross-section shape. The second of these designs uses several fabric double-walled sail elements containing internal rigid stiffeners. Each of these sail elements may be independently rotated about vertical axes for formation of variable shaping of the overall system. Included in this group is U.S. Pat. No. 3,332,383 disclosing an airfoil design based on a flexible skin with very complex internal mechanism for reversing the cross-section camber.
(b3) U.S. Pat. Nos. 3,934,533 and 4,561,374 and U.S. patent application 20150033998 disclose sail designs that are comprised entirely of rigid elements. The first of these designs consist of two large rigid panels mounted to a common mast. The panels may be rotated relative to each other about the mast thus forming reversing camber airfoil-like cross-sections. The second patent listed discloses a three rigid panel design, of which the central panel assumes the mast function and may be rotated relative to the ship. The remaining two rigid panels are each hinged to the mast panel, the rotation of which forms various overall assembly cross-sectional shapes. The patent application discloses a very large essentially rigid symmetric airfoil sail design which rotates with an integral mast. Wing flap-like panels are hinged to the trailing edge of the main airfoil to provide additional lift force for both tack directions. The overall sail is hinged about the horizontal axis so that the upper part of the sail can be lowered to a horizontal position enabling the ship to pass under bridges and dock structures.
(c1) The ability to quickly furl, retract or collapse a sail before or during dangerous wind conditions is very important for overall safety of the sail design. All of the fabric based sail designs are capable of being vertically collapsed. However, the process of collapsing the sail and securing or stowing it could be a lengthy and labor intensive process.
(c2) The remainder of the sail designs discussed contain no provisions for furling, retraction, or stowage of the sail. In an emergency all of them could be feathered (set in a minimum aerodynamic drag configuration) and allowed to “windmill” or self seek the lowest drag force condition. Dangerous forces could still be generated for hurricane winds. However, the large sail disclosed in patent application 20150033998 could generate dangerous forces when in a feathered state for moderately strong winds. Even if the upper portion of this sail were lowered to a horizontal position, potentially dangerous forces could be generated for all strong winds.
(d1) None of the reviewed designs emphasize ease of operation or potential for automation. Two designs did indicate means of powering mast rotations. No designs provided for means of automating sail configuration changes.
(d2) Utilization of any of the reviewed sail designs for commercial purposes would require a significant amount of human labor, potentially offsetting the economic advantages of using commercial sail power. In addition to economics, use of commercial sail power could significantly reduce diesel exhaust pollution, marine environment acoustic pollution (shown to be detrimental to some sea life) and fuel bunker purge-leakage pollution.
A new sail design is disclosed which is based on the cross-referenced U.S. patent application for a deployable sandwich-like shell. The overall sail module is comprised of three assemblies: 1. a central mast-sail assembly, 2. a lower control and guide assembly, 3. an upper control and guide assembly (mirror image of the lower assembly). A fourth assembly is: 4. the sail module support and rotation assembly. The central assembly consists, in part, of three concentric cylinders: the mast, upper and lower control assembly connection tube, and a mandrel upon which the un-deployed sail is connected and furled. The central assembly consists, additionally, of moveable aerodynamic fairings and sheets. The control assemblies contain the means for independently rotating the sail storage mandrel and aerodynamic fairings. These assemblies also contain moveable deployed sail guide tracks. Finally, the sail module support and rotation assembly supports the mast and contains means for powering overall sail module rotation.
The deployable shell reversible camber sail system design disclosed herein scores very high in the four general categories discusses above and is, in general, uniquely superior to all of the reviewed sail designs for the following combined reasons:
(a) Deployed sail cross-sections for port and starboard tack configurations, as well as the feathered state, are aerodynamically efficient having high lift (for the asymmetrical configurations) and low drag forces,
(b) The design may be easily constructed of inexpensive light weight metal alloys and/or fiber reinforced polymer materials,
(c) For unfavorable relative wind conditions, the sail may be easily configured to the low-drag feathered state, and for dangerous wind conditions, the sail may be automatically and quickly stowed into the furled state resulting in very high operational safety,
(d) All of the sail configuration change operations, as well as overall sail angle of attack adjustments, utilize individual means of force application which may be controlled by a single human operator or computer,
(e) Due to the inherent modularity of the design, two or more sail modules may be connected so as to form a larger combined sail which may be used for recreational high performance, competition, or commercial uses.
In the drawings, closely related figures have the same number but differing alphabetical suffixes.
Actual usage of the sail system embodiment is symbolically shown in
The heart of the embodiment is a deployable shell sail, as described in detail in the Cross-reference, and shown in
A cross-section of the entire furled mast-sail assembly is depicted in
Upon deployment of the sail 58 and rotation of the fairings 51 and 52, the embodiment is in the port tack configuration,
Side and plan views of the overall control and guide assembly are shown in
Construction of this sail system is straightforward, even for the deployable sail portion of the mast-sail assembly. As described in the Cross-reference, construction of this sub-assembly is easily accomplished by first attaching the outer and inner panels 31, 32 to a construction mandrel of similar dimensions to that of the embodiment mandrel 36. The web-hinge-support panels (33, 35, 41) are preassembled. For each web, the hinges are attached to both of the panels after which the construction mandrel is rotated and the process repeated for all webs. Thus, proper spacing of the hinge-to-panel connections is automatically ensured.
A variety of construction materials is possible. Due to the versatility and high strength to weight ratio of fiber reinforced polymers (FRPs), these materials are well-suited for the deployable sail design. High strength to weight metals, such as heat-treated aluminum alloy, are suitable for the mast 56 and assembly covering skins. For those portions of the embodiment requiring high strength and durability, such as the sail module module support and rotation assembly (81 and 83) and the load bearing portions of the control and guide assembly (65 and 66), a high strength steel alloy is appropriate.
Operational ease and efficiency are important design requirements of this embodiment.
Among many possible, three additional, embodiments are briefly described. These embodiments illustrate usage of the first embodiment module for creation of multi-module applications. The additional embodiments are configured for actual vessel usage. Thus, dimensions of a typical first embodiment module are taken to be: total height (excluding mast step and rotation assembly)—10 m, total maximum horizontal width—4 m. Therefore, for embodiments requiring two or more stacked modules, additional lateral support, in addition to inherent module strength, may be required. This is accomplished with conventional standing rigging which is augmented with a mast head assembly as conceptually illustrated in
For standing rigging attachment to stacked modules, a mast-head rigging attachment assembly may be required which is attached to the top of the uppermost sail module. Overall exterior views of the conceptual mast head assembly 91 are illustrated in
Non-commercial applications of the first embodiment sail system include recreational and competitive vessels.
Due to the exceptional efficiency and operability of the first embodiment sail system module, adaptations of this sail embodiment to commercial uses is both profitable and extremely environmentally friendly. Crew numbers required for both maintenance and operation of a large number of sail modules is small. Both efficiency and operability of the sail modules is enhanced through computer controlled automation of the module configuration modification motors. Also, prevailing wind patterns would be included in course planning so as to minimize use of conventional fuels while maintaining acceptable passage times.
In the 19th and early 20th centuries, the fabric-sailed multi-mast schooner was one of the most popular ship configurations. However, sail handling required a sizable crew which, together with relatively inefficient sails, contributed to poorer economics when compared with fossil fuel powered vessels. However, very efficient sail design and automated operations results in much greater cost-effectiveness which, in turn, could be realized in modern commercial sailing vessels.
A conceptual purpose-built sailing vessel is illustrated in
Hybrid sail—fossil fuel powered commercial vessels are feasible where a conventional propulsive system is augmented with wind power. This system would be effective for relatively low vessel speed operations in generally favorable prevailing wind regions. The key for realizing sail power propulsive augmentation is computerized control of the sail modules based on experimentally derived lift-drag data for expected wind speeds and sail module configurations.
A number of advantages are evident in the embodiments described above:
(a) Inherent modularity of the first embodiment sail system allows great flexibility when building additional embodiments utilizing module combinations.
(b) Recreational usage embodiments enable safe and easily manageable, yet fast and efficient yachting vessels.
(c) Embodiments targeting competition usage have the advantages of high speeds due to module efficiency and rapid configuration changes due to ease of module operation.
(d) Commercial usage embodiments enable cost-effective utilization of sail power, due to efficiency and operability, for vessels whose primary motive energy source is wind and for sail power augmentation where the primary energy source is fossil fuels.
A deployable reversible camber sail system has been disclosed. This system is relatively simple in concept and construction, yet is highly efficient and easily operable with the following capabilities:
Although the above discussion contains many specificities, these should not be construed as limiting the scope of the embodiments, but as merely providing illustrations of some of several embodiments. Thus the scope of the embodiments should be determined by the appended claims and their legal equivalents, rather than by the examples given.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
3332383 | Wright | Jul 1967 | A |
3934533 | Wainwright | Jan 1976 | A |
4064821 | Roberts, Jr. | Dec 1977 | A |
4388888 | Gushurst, Jr. | Jun 1983 | A |
4561374 | Asker | Dec 1985 | A |
4625671 | Nishimura | Dec 1986 | A |
4686921 | Magnan | Aug 1987 | A |
4708079 | Magnan | Nov 1987 | A |
4848258 | Priebe | Jul 1989 | A |
6141809 | Lyngholm | Nov 2000 | A |
6431100 | Abshier | Aug 2002 | B2 |
7114456 | Sohy | Oct 2006 | B2 |
9422043 | Englebert | Aug 2016 | B2 |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20170369139 A1 | Dec 2017 | US |