1. Field of the Invention
The invention relates to hull shapes for ships and submarines that substantially eliminate waves caused by movement in or on the water.
2. Description of the Related Art
A traditional hull that is found in the prior art has a pointed end at the bow, and a blunt transom at the stern. When moving forward through the water, the bow generates a bow wave and the stern generates a stern wave and a transverse wave. The vessel also generates pressure waves directed downward. Transverse waves are generated by both sharp and blunt-end sterns.
Generating these waves requires displacing large masses of water, does not assist with the efficiency or the sea-worthiness of the vessel, and wastes a great deal of energy. These waves also present a hazard to other vessels, and can be a source of danger or discomfort to their crews and passengers. One example is an accident that occurred in August, 1999, in the Cape Cod Canal. The admiralty court found that the accident was caused by the large waves generated by a passing ship. The accident caused US $1.3 million in damage. Large waves also greatly contribute to bank and channel erosion, and weaken bridge and pier supports. It is apparent that a vessel hull that reduces or eliminates bow, stern, and transverse waves would be very beneficial.
Others have attempted to modify the hull design to reduce or eliminate waves. One of them is U.S. Pat. No. 6,112,687 (the '687 patent), which is not admitted to being prior art by its mention in this Background section. In this patent, a “displacement body” is disposed on the underside of the hull and shaped to cancel the waves the hull would otherwise make. This hull does not take pressure waves generated in the downward direction into account at all, and would only be efficient at its rated hull speed.
Another example is disclosed in the U.S. Pat. No. 5,954,009 (the '009 patent), which teaches the application of a “wake reflector system” disposed about a traditional hull shape to contain the bow, stern, and transverse waves. The specification claims that the system is applicable to both surface vessels and submarines. Like the '687 patent, this patent does not take waves generated in the downward direction into account, and it does not attempt to reduce the formation of the waves themselves. The waves are only contained until the vessel has traveled clear of the zone of their immediate effect.
Icebreakers are specialized vessels that typically use their weight to ride on top of ice to break it. Icebreakers typically leave the resulting channel full of broken ice that is easy to re-freeze and block an ice-bound passage again. In addition, icebreakers of the prior art are prone to propeller damage due the presence of ice pieces floating at the surface.
What is needed, therefore, is a vessel hull that does not create bow, stern, or transverse waves when moving through the water, and that can break and clear ice from a channel without endangering a vessel's propulsion means.
An invention that satisfies the need for a vessel hull that does not create bow, stern, or transverse waves when moving through the water has an exterior surface having a substantially constant cross-section along the length of the hull, and an interior surface that substantially encloses a flow channel for the length of the hull, the interior surface comprising a converging-diverging diffuser. An icebreaker version has a plow that breaks ice from the bottom and transports it clear of the channel. These and other features, aspects, and advantages of the present invention will become better understood with regard to the following description, claims, and accompanying drawings.
A vessel hull according to the present invention has an exterior surface having a substantially constant cross-section along the length of the hull, and an interior surface that substantially encloses a flow channel for the length of the hull, the interior surface comprising a converging-diverging diffuser. Several embodiments were claimed in U.S. Pat. No. 6,647,909, invented by the same inventor as the present invention, which is hereby incorporated by reference as though completely rewritten herein.
Turning to
The exterior surface 26 is preferably a regular polygon, but can be almost any geometric shape. Preferred shapes are rectangles, hexagons, octagons, decagons, circles, and ovals.
The interior surface 24 should enclose most of the water displaced by the vessel, and preferably encloses all of the water. The vessel will not be as efficient if there are gaps and holes admitting water from the exterior surface 26 to the interior surface 24 at any other place besides the bow and the stern, but the scope of this specification is such that they should be considered equivalents to the present invention.
There are several ways to propel the vessel that will substantially maintain its waveless qualities. One example is a water-jet drive option using a pump 38, 39 shown schematically in
Another alternative is to pump air from the surface to an outlet 34 behind and the middle throat 14 of the hull. The air bubbles will increase the volume of the mass in the diverging portion of the diffuser, and would push the mass towards the stern throat 16, thus propelling the vessel forward. Although not shown in
Two other examples of suitable propulsion means include the electromagnetic thrusters disclosed in U.S. Pat. Nos. 2,997,013, and 5,333,444. Application of these thrusters to the present invention would make a very quiet, and very stealthy vessel.
The cross sectional area of the bow throat 12 and the stern throat 16 should be the same. The cross sectional area of the middle throat 14 should be between about 40% and 70% of that of the bow and stern throats.
One of the major advantages of this type of hull is that it recovers the energy that the hull would otherwise put into displaced water, e.g. waves, while the hull is in forward motion. Conventional hulls move the water aside and the work to do this task is not recovered. The hull of the present invention does not move the water aside, but accelerates it in the converging diffuser in the axial direction along the hull. Subsequently, the energy is recovered, minus hydraulic friction losses, in the diverging part of the diffuser. These losses must be made up by the propulsion of the vessel.
A hybrid vessel incorporating a standard displacement hull shape with the waveless hull structures of the present invention can also be designed. This may be advantageous for retrofitting existing boat hulls with waveless hull structures. A hybrid vessel would not have an exterior surface with a substantially constant cross section along the length of the hull, since the bow would be pointed.
There is, however, a penalty for the containment of the waves. There is an increased wetted surface area as compared to a conventional hull. Therefore, there are higher friction losses due to the increased surface area. In addition, there are higher friction losses in the diffuser section due to the increased velocity of the water through the hull. Altogether, the friction losses can be a few times higher than the losses for a conventional hull. These losses increase with the square of the hull velocity. Since the losses for wave making by a conventional hull rise with the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, or higher power of the velocity, then trading them for the friction of the hull of the present invention will always be advantageous at higher speeds. The necessary and unexpected conclusion is that the hull of the present invention will not be subjected to a hull velocity phenomenon, and therefore it can achieve much higher speed than a conventional hull.
Instead of being completely waveless, it is more technically correct to say that the hull of the present invention creates a standing, half-wave starting at the bow throat opening 12, and cresting at the middle throat 14. It is a half wave because it does not have a corresponding pressure part of the wave. There are no bow, stern, or transverse waves. The only waves expected to be generated by the hull motion are small waves due to the boundary layer on the exterior hull surface 26, and the water velocity mismatch between the diffuser exit and the surrounding water due to the propulsion of the hull, excluding sail propulsion. The mismatch will inherently increase with the hull's speed and may require optimizing the propulsion/stern interface to minimize the hull's wake.
One must realize that a propulsion device speeds up a significant portion of the water flowing through the converging-diverging diffuser. This produces a suction effect at the diffuser inlet, thus reducing the size of the crest for surface vessels as well as the pressure “crest” for submarines as compared to conventional hulls. For waveless hulls, these crests cannot “spill over” the exterior hull 26.
The hull of the present invention may have many advantages over a conventional hull where the wave resistance can be many times more than the friction resistance of the vessel. Based on a book titled “Sailing Theory and Practice”, by C. A. Marchaj, published by Dodd, Mead & Co, New York 1964, wave-making begins to have an effect when the value of Vs*SQR(L) reaches about 0.7. In this equation, Vs=speed of the boat, L=length of the water line. For the values Vs/(SQR(L))=1.1 and higher, the resistance increases rapidly and can rise to the 3rd, 4th, 5th, or even 6th power of the boat speed while the friction resistance rises with the second power of speed.
According to the book mentioned above, a model was tested at the Stevens Institute of Technology for a sailboat having the following dimensions: length overall=45.5 feet, water line length=32.26 feet, beam=10.58 feet, draft=6.56 feet, and displacement=11.38 tons (25,500 pounds). The friction resistance of hull equals the wave making resistance at 6.3 knots, each being 110 pounds. However, at 8.4 knots, the wave making resistance is 816 pounds, which is 4.46 times larger than the frictional resistance, 183 pounds. Above about 8.4 knots, the wave making resistance rises even more rapidly. This limits the finest, heavy-displacement keelboats to speed/length ratio of about Vs/(SQR(L))=1.4. The America's Cup sailing vessels exceed 1.45. Destroyers exceed 2.0. With the length of destroyers ranging from 320 feet to 450 feet, they must be moving at about 40 knots. This indicates an enormous opportunity for saving the energy used in wave making.
Another advantage of the novel hull is its stability due to a large mass of water in the converging-diverging diffuser inside the hull. During maneuvering, however, that water must turn together with the hull, which may require rudders not only in the stern but also in the bow. The diffuser walls, both at the bow 12 and stern 16, may accommodate the rudders as parts of the walls, so that the rudders will not protrude into the flow path when the hull is moving straight. Such rudders will have an advantage over the protruding rudders applied in the prior art that may account for as much as 15% of the total drag losses.
The water turning with the vessel during maneuvering may also rotate inside the diffuser due to the Coriolis effect. To prevent hull rotation by friction forces between the rotating water and the hull, stabilizing rudders will be needed. The same rudders may also be used to counteract rolling of the hull due to waves.
A waveless hull may also provide the ideal hull form for an improved icebreaker.
Also in this plan view are seen eight wedges 82 protruding from the surface of the plow 70. These wedges 82 are for scoring the bottom of the ice sheet after it is lifted to facilitate breaking ice sheets into even widths. New ice that is up to one meter thick and homogeneous can be much harder to break than ice that has frozen into chunks. The wedges introduce cracks into ice sheets where the bottom surface is in tension after the blade 74 has lifted the sheet and put it into compression. More or fewer than eight wedges 82 can be used. Another embodiment of the wedges is sharp wheels, like pizza cutters, that can also be supported and located using hydraulic pistons. This feature is very important for operation in areas like the Great Lakes or oceans where ice freezes homogeneously very quickly.
In practice, the vessel can adjust its trim, perhaps by changing its buoyancy, to make sure the bow 76 is below the bottom of the ice. The vessel would move forward, and the plow 70 would wedge itself under the ice. As the vessel continues moving forward, ice is lifted above the water and ice line. Due to the raised shape of the plow, ice then slides off the vessel onto the remaining ice pack instead of the in the channel as in the prior art. The result is a clear channel free of floating ice, and one that is more likely to remain clear for a longer time.
One option is to provide a blade 74 disposed at the peak of the plow for lifting and breaking the bottom of the ice. This would make it easier to clear the ice. The blade can have a blunt edge, a sharp edge, a serrated edge, or have teeth. Another option is to provide a strut 80 between the plow and the bottom of the hull to add strength.
The icebreaker embodiment has many advantages over the prior art. The invention would enable building icebreakers to accommodate ships with beams over 26 meters. It would allow the use of oil tankers of 50,000 tons, which would open a new, competitive way to transport oil that would compete with pipeline oil transportation. Any desired width of channel can be cut using a wider icebreaker and creating more ice strips. Also, the channel left behind the icebreaker would be free of floating ice. A clean, parallel channel is less likely to produce a convergent ice field, which is currently the major cause of stopping convoys, even in thin ice. The icebreaker with a waveless hull would be faster in all ice conditions, and be more reliable because its propulsion would be deep in the water where it would have less contact with ice. The icebreaker would be less likely to get stuck, since it would lower its buoyancy to sink lower in the water to free itself from ice. Finally, this novel icebreaker could operate in fast ice regions, such as Siberia, that may extend over 300 miles from the coastline, and which is presently avoided because of the difficulty of passing through it due to the ice. For references, see: Haas, C.; Rupp, K.-H.; Uuskallio A., Comparison of Along Track EM Ice Thickness Profiles with Ship Performance Data, 1999, POAC'99 Proc. of the 15th Int. Conf. on Port and Ocean Engineering Under Arctic Conditions, Espoo, Finland, Aug. 23–27, 1999, Helsinki Univ. of Techn., Ship Laboratory, 343–353; and Ragner, C. L., Northern Sea Route Cargo Flows and Infrastructure-Present State and Future Potential, The Fridtjof Nansen Institute, FNI Report 13/2000.ISBN 82-7613-400-9.
In conclusion, the hull of the present invention has many different potential applications. A partial list is as follows: torpedo, submarine, cruiser, destroyer, aircraft carrier, yard patrol craft, coastal patrol ship, special operations craft, pilot boat, harbor boat, rescue boat, tug boat, air-driven lake boat, ferry, tanker, freighter, semi-submersible cargo ship, ocean liner/cruise ship, barge, ferry, motorboat, ski boat with an adjustable diffuser at speed, personal watercraft, sailboat, icebreaker, and even an airship/blimp.
While there have been described what are at present considered to be the preferred embodiments of this invention, it will be obvious to those skilled in the art that various changes and modifications may be made therein without departing from the invention, and it is, therefore, aimed to cover all such changes and modifications as fall within the true spirit and scope of the invention.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
151774 | Grant | Jun 1874 | A |
1759511 | Kort | May 1930 | A |
1991512 | Miller | Feb 1935 | A |
2997013 | Rice | Aug 1961 | A |
3521591 | Alexander | Jul 1970 | A |
4767370 | Campbell | Aug 1988 | A |
5088433 | Osawa et al. | Feb 1992 | A |
5178085 | Hsu | Jan 1993 | A |
5333444 | Meng | Aug 1994 | A |
5402743 | Holderman | Apr 1995 | A |
5438947 | Tam | Aug 1995 | A |
5497722 | English | Mar 1996 | A |
5503100 | Shaw | Apr 1996 | A |
5544610 | Harding | Aug 1996 | A |
5592895 | Schmidt | Jan 1997 | A |
5730391 | Miller et al. | Mar 1998 | A |
5954009 | Esmiol | Sep 1999 | A |
RE36879 | Schoell | Sep 2000 | E |
6112687 | Eder | Sep 2000 | A |
6167829 | Lang | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6250245 | Robinson et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6250246 | Hubley | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6314903 | Robinson et al. | Nov 2001 | B2 |
6345584 | Mascellaro | Feb 2002 | B1 |
6526903 | Robinson et al. | Mar 2003 | B2 |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20050183649 A1 | Aug 2005 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 10262018 | Oct 2002 | US |
Child | 10707060 | US |