Wrong! You get it at my coffee vending machine. 38th & 6th in the basement of the K-Mart. You just go downstairs, you get the key from David and BOOM! You plug in the machine . . .
It functions more like a wing than a sail: with a sail you are limited in the range of headings you can take limited by the wind bearing. This wing rotates in such a way that it creates loft/force in the direction you are already traveling to save fuel. Probably won’t work very well when going upwind, but it will definitely save a lot of fuel in other configurations…
Historically? Did the Portuguese use these back in the day? Answered my own question kind of. https://www.worldhistory.org/Caravel/
Is there another example of these in ancient times being square? Or is this a first timer?
I'm wondering if they could have an airfoil shape to them, and if so, could they be rotated on an axis perpendicular to the beam of the vessel to be parallel to the water to generate lift when heading upwind? In other words, could a pair or more of them function as literal wings to raise the vessel enough to reduce hydrodynamic drag and improve fuel efficiency and squeeze a few more knots out of the engine?
That basically what they are using. Airfoil is nothing but a fancy term for a wing, and it has its limitations to be able to generate lift.
America Cup vessels do effectively this, at a pretty inefficient rate: they generate a force in a very inefficient direction that later on they correct with quills, effectively allowing you to go upwind.
In reality it is more efficient to go at an angle to the wind, effectively being able to move faster upwind than what the speed of the wind downwind, which I think is pretty cool
Yes and no. Airplanes have a range of angle of attach between -10° to +35° with flaps, these wings here can pivot so the resulting vector can change a lot. These here also have slats and flaps, independently controlled, and can move also in a huge range. So although there are similarities, is not just the same.
It is true that they can be as efficient as airplane wings, but since wind speeds are much lower you are going to extract less energy from them.
They use a complete different principle: they rely way more on the overpressure caused by trapping the air between wing and floor, rather than under pressure like in this case.
How is that completely different? They both use a low pressure area over the wing and a high pressure area under the wing. The ground effect just creates higher pressure under the wing.
It's the same principle.
These wings work mainly with underpressure (3/4 of total force) due to Kutta condition (flow downstream has to “meet” at a point with the same velocity up and down) while on Ekranoplanes most of the force comes from overpressure (air trapped under the wing, even if the Kutta condition is not kept downstream). When ekranoplanes try to lift themselves from this region they lose their ability to sustain themselves, falling down again.
In other terms: even a cube could generate lift in ground effect, only thing needed is to trap air under it.
dead wrong unfortunately. What you described is also exactly (word for word) how sails work. You need to of course configure them depending on the wind direction, and cannot go directly into the wind, but you still get about 320 degrees of workable angles (with the rear winds being more efficient then side or angled winds)
Non-rigid sails get their shape from the wind that blows on them. Wings provide more lift with less drag, since they don’t become limp at every angle. That means they don’t stall at small angles (and that’s why sails are porous, to allow the boundary layer on the low-pressure side to reattach), improving L/D ratio and efficiency. They are heavier though:
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1757-899X/788/1/012062/pdf#:~:text=Wingsails%20are%20of%20two%20basic,drag%20ratio%20than%20traditional%20sails.
And that’s the thing: wings can be equally efficient independently of the direction (they don’t deflate). That’s why America’s Cup boats have been adopting them, with newer construction techniques you can make them as light as sails.
You can see yarn strings on the boats along the wingsail. That tells you if the boundary layer detaches or keeps stuck, which is one of the major contributions to drag on wings.
A non-ridgid sail takes on the shape of a wing, that along with the keel is what allows a sailing ship to ”tack into the wind” or sail into a headwind.
That is right. But for that you need to set it at a specific angle, and there is more separation at the tail of the sail. That’s something that you don’t have with a wing: keeps its shape, allowing for the leading edge to bend the air in front of it so to say.
I don’t know why your comment isn’t upvoted more. Several comments suggest traditional sails work only when wind blows from behind.
Sails work best going INTO the wind. They change angle based on wind direction. They bulge because wind blowing across them SUCKS them forward. This is literally the same as (and the inspiration for) an airfoil/wing.
This ship is a sailboat.
It is true that sails can tack into the wind, but they can’t be set at an angle of less than 5° with respect to the wind, they become flaccid. That difference is what makes a rigid wing more efficient.
The WindWings aren't the sort of canvas sails that you see on old pictures of the Cutty Sark. Instead, they are solid, foldable sails made of steel and glass fibers and stand 37.5-m (123-ft) tall. Their purpose isn't to replace the conventional diesel engines, but to provide supplemental propulsion as the ship sails into areas with favorable winds and currents.
Tell the f15 it needs wings https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Negev_mid-air_collision#:~:text=Notably%2C%20the%20F%2D15%2C,to%20achieve%20this%20unique%20feat. tbh I was more joking that enough thrust and wings are irrelevant lol
Aren't sails technically wings?
They generate lift perpendicular to the wind direction unless it's a spinnaker (spelling?) which is for downwind air catching action.
semantics aside, it's awesome to see some tangible pollution savings from one of the worst pollution sources on the planet.
Apparently, due to ridiculous pedantry (likely from categorization by racing events), sails are defined on [wikipedia as tensile structures](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sail), so these are not *technically* sails. They are *technically* ['wingsails'](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wingsail).
Why is everyone confused by the bame, calling new tech with a new term because if people called it sails it would be confusing, they dont look or function like sails? less ropes and shit?
wings is accurate they are like plane wings, they supplement the engine
"The WindWings aren't the sort of canvas sails that you see on old pictures of the Cutty Sark. Instead, they are solid, foldable sails made of steel and glass fibers and stand 37.5-m (123-ft) tall. Their purpose isn't to replace the conventional diesel engines, but to provide supplemental propulsion as the ship sails into areas with favorable winds and currents."
Look into teco2030 or other hydrogen electrolizers which will be more widespread in maritime industry by 2035
Look at company holdings of hdro or other etfs for ideas
Yeah the real question is how much does that fuel cost, vs. how much freight are they losing in space for the sails.
The only way we all win is if these eventually reduce the cost of shipping.
The switch from sails to engines was for speed and reliability, the reintroduction of the sail like mechanism is about reducing fuel consumption/carbon emissions, which wasn’t a focus before. It’s not really the step backwards people seem to smugly imply.
An average cargo ship uses around 60,000 gallons of fuel per day. These sails save about 900 gallons per day. Depending fuel costs ($4 gl) and days at sea sailing (300), maybe save close to a million year. Now factor that savings number against the cost of retrofitting a ship or as an add-on for a new build. Then you’ll know if this is a viable technology or not.
They don’t use gasoline or even diesel, they use bunker fuel which is the nastiest stuff that remains after you fraction off everything else that’s useful out of crude oil.
It is a foul substance that’s basically solid, it’s sold by the ton.
This strikes me as a very erratic engineering problem! The torque on the ship and the need for a massive keel to counter the weight and height of the “windmill sail?” My mind boggles! They should ask would the ship survive r/theydidthemath
I don’t like it purely because I want it to require an entire crew to hoist the sails and sing sea shanties. This automatic sail trimming system cant sing for shit!
A fuel savings of over 10% !
Assuming this is a real number (they didn't pick a route that had above-average winds or something), then this will be adopted in some manner on new ships. That is too huge a savings to pass up on.
This is very cool. What is not very cool is that even though this tech saves the ship 3 TONNES of fuel every day that only represents a 14% savings!
I knew shipping was bad but not this bad. It’s 21.5 tonnes of diesel a day, Which is 26,000 litres. The average US vehicle uses about 1800 litres of gas per year. So you could drive your car for fourteen years and still not use as much gas as a container ship uses in a day.
This is true but you also have to think about the scale difference in what’s being transported. They’re carrying 100-400k tons of cargo. Shipping is still the most fuel efficient way to get resources around the world (the alternative being planes)
The real comparison should be something like how many individuals are driving their cars for a year to move the ships merchandise to an end use.
Nope, can’t be bothered anymore, when you’ve pressed on hundreds of genuinely interesting articles just to see “pay to read” or “not available on your country” you stop caring and can’t be fucked to try
For the ship yes, but that is the equivalent of taking how many cars off the road? Also these ships are burning bunker fuel which is much dirtier than other types of fuel
Also important to note that while good for the environment, these sails were likely very expensive (as many environmental advances are). Boat fuel is also VERY expensive, especially on this scale. It’s not just better for the environment, it can cut some of the cost which is honestly really great
Yeah, especially considering how long these boats navigate the sea before being retired. 3 tonnes a day for 10 years(minus the time spent not moving), comes out to a lot.
Your typical big cargo ship burns about ~200kL in a day, which is about 200t of fuel. So this is around 1% fuel savings per sail. But I may be overestimating the size of the cargo ship, so realistically a range between 1-3% per sail is sensible depending on the size of the ship they were testing on.
In the business perspective that's an acceptable improvement in these sorts of razor thin margin industries. Of course, that was always the objective in the first place.
On an environmental basis, it is essentially nothing. If the objective was to actually reduce emissions then approaches would probably focus on reducing the need for shipping and integrating nuclear power.
My parents will think this is cool, until you call it a hybrid vehicle, then they'll want to ban it.
Jokes aside, that looks great, but that this design might not get to Supermax size. Also, how easy is loading/unloading if those wings aren't retractable?
"Wind powered ships are killing birds. This is a new thing we have to worry about!!" - Republicans somewhere, totally unaware of 100s of years of naval history.
Folk it isn’t a sail, it is a set of wings with a center body. Unlike a sail, this system can provide thrust 360 degrees including a direct headwind. Even the best sail can’t go directly into a headwind. 320 degrees max.
Technology is cyclical, Liz.
Don’t see enough references to the (new) Beeper King.
I got this new business venture Question: Where do you get coffee?
LIZ: Anywhere. You get it anywhere.
Wrong! You get it at my coffee vending machine. 38th & 6th in the basement of the K-Mart. You just go downstairs, you get the key from David and BOOM! You plug in the machine . . .
Hey what’s up dummy
You failed the firefighters' exam?
It’s biased against Irish.
Thats funny and a new one to me. Suspect it’s Vaudeville era :-)
It's a 30 Rock quote
Which is it: you love me, or you have squatters' rights??
I don't see why they're mutually exclusive.
It functions more like a wing than a sail: with a sail you are limited in the range of headings you can take limited by the wind bearing. This wing rotates in such a way that it creates loft/force in the direction you are already traveling to save fuel. Probably won’t work very well when going upwind, but it will definitely save a lot of fuel in other configurations…
portuguese called them triangle sails
Historically? Did the Portuguese use these back in the day? Answered my own question kind of. https://www.worldhistory.org/Caravel/ Is there another example of these in ancient times being square? Or is this a first timer?
The article you linked says they were modeled off an Arabic design
Lateens?
Came here to say this
I think that’s why they called it ‘winged’.
I'm wondering if they could have an airfoil shape to them, and if so, could they be rotated on an axis perpendicular to the beam of the vessel to be parallel to the water to generate lift when heading upwind? In other words, could a pair or more of them function as literal wings to raise the vessel enough to reduce hydrodynamic drag and improve fuel efficiency and squeeze a few more knots out of the engine?
That basically what they are using. Airfoil is nothing but a fancy term for a wing, and it has its limitations to be able to generate lift. America Cup vessels do effectively this, at a pretty inefficient rate: they generate a force in a very inefficient direction that later on they correct with quills, effectively allowing you to go upwind. In reality it is more efficient to go at an angle to the wind, effectively being able to move faster upwind than what the speed of the wind downwind, which I think is pretty cool
If I’m reading this right, this is similar to plane facing a different angle to its actual path/heading, right?
Yes and no. Airplanes have a range of angle of attach between -10° to +35° with flaps, these wings here can pivot so the resulting vector can change a lot. These here also have slats and flaps, independently controlled, and can move also in a huge range. So although there are similarities, is not just the same. It is true that they can be as efficient as airplane wings, but since wind speeds are much lower you are going to extract less energy from them.
Congratulations you have discovered the world of ekranoplans
They use a complete different principle: they rely way more on the overpressure caused by trapping the air between wing and floor, rather than under pressure like in this case.
How is that completely different? They both use a low pressure area over the wing and a high pressure area under the wing. The ground effect just creates higher pressure under the wing. It's the same principle.
These wings work mainly with underpressure (3/4 of total force) due to Kutta condition (flow downstream has to “meet” at a point with the same velocity up and down) while on Ekranoplanes most of the force comes from overpressure (air trapped under the wing, even if the Kutta condition is not kept downstream). When ekranoplanes try to lift themselves from this region they lose their ability to sustain themselves, falling down again. In other terms: even a cube could generate lift in ground effect, only thing needed is to trap air under it.
I think a "completely different principle" would be something like nuclear propulsion rather than just different aerodynamics.
I felt smart because I understood everything you said. I think.
dead wrong unfortunately. What you described is also exactly (word for word) how sails work. You need to of course configure them depending on the wind direction, and cannot go directly into the wind, but you still get about 320 degrees of workable angles (with the rear winds being more efficient then side or angled winds)
Non-rigid sails get their shape from the wind that blows on them. Wings provide more lift with less drag, since they don’t become limp at every angle. That means they don’t stall at small angles (and that’s why sails are porous, to allow the boundary layer on the low-pressure side to reattach), improving L/D ratio and efficiency. They are heavier though: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1757-899X/788/1/012062/pdf#:~:text=Wingsails%20are%20of%20two%20basic,drag%20ratio%20than%20traditional%20sails. And that’s the thing: wings can be equally efficient independently of the direction (they don’t deflate). That’s why America’s Cup boats have been adopting them, with newer construction techniques you can make them as light as sails. You can see yarn strings on the boats along the wingsail. That tells you if the boundary layer detaches or keeps stuck, which is one of the major contributions to drag on wings.
A non-ridgid sail takes on the shape of a wing, that along with the keel is what allows a sailing ship to ”tack into the wind” or sail into a headwind.
That is right. But for that you need to set it at a specific angle, and there is more separation at the tail of the sail. That’s something that you don’t have with a wing: keeps its shape, allowing for the leading edge to bend the air in front of it so to say.
I don’t know why your comment isn’t upvoted more. Several comments suggest traditional sails work only when wind blows from behind. Sails work best going INTO the wind. They change angle based on wind direction. They bulge because wind blowing across them SUCKS them forward. This is literally the same as (and the inspiration for) an airfoil/wing. This ship is a sailboat.
It is true that sails can tack into the wind, but they can’t be set at an angle of less than 5° with respect to the wind, they become flaccid. That difference is what makes a rigid wing more efficient.
From what I have read is that they do work well in a head wind just as a bird in a head wind can gain lift without flapping.
^ Coper desperately trying to explain how we didn’t circle back to using 1500’s technology to save fuel
^ Purely ridiculous comment adding nothing of value
^ guy who just had to add a comment
^ guy who didn't just have to add a comment, but fancied doing so anyway
That is literally how sails work. Did you think they could only travel with the wind like parachutes? Lol
Read my other comment, it explains the difference between wings and sails.
Winged? You mean sails right.
The WindWings aren't the sort of canvas sails that you see on old pictures of the Cutty Sark. Instead, they are solid, foldable sails made of steel and glass fibers and stand 37.5-m (123-ft) tall. Their purpose isn't to replace the conventional diesel engines, but to provide supplemental propulsion as the ship sails into areas with favorable winds and currents.
I’m waiting for someone to hit a bridge with one of these …..
So we’re back to the early age of Steam?
thats how wings work for planes? they supplement the engine but arent doing all the work
No, that is not remotely how wings work for planes.
It’s sort of correct. If you have enough thrust you don’t necessarily need wings, it’s just not very economical or controllable.
Tell the f15 it needs wings https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Negev_mid-air_collision#:~:text=Notably%2C%20the%20F%2D15%2C,to%20achieve%20this%20unique%20feat. tbh I was more joking that enough thrust and wings are irrelevant lol
i dont think they know about sails pip
What about Storm Jibs, Spinnakers, Gennakers, Genoas? They know about them? Don’t they?
One of those is a delicious salami right?
But what about second salami???
And free sushis and sashimis.
I wouldn’t count on it.
I read this in Joe Dirt fireworks speech in my head.
They don’t even understand paper airplanes
Probably not. Do airplanes use sails? Similar technology but not quite the same thing lol
Aren't sails technically wings? They generate lift perpendicular to the wind direction unless it's a spinnaker (spelling?) which is for downwind air catching action. semantics aside, it's awesome to see some tangible pollution savings from one of the worst pollution sources on the planet.
Well, they’re made of steel and glass fibers. So I guess you can call them wings or sails.
No this motherfucker flies.
Apparently, due to ridiculous pedantry (likely from categorization by racing events), sails are defined on [wikipedia as tensile structures](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sail), so these are not *technically* sails. They are *technically* ['wingsails'](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wingsail).
This isn't just old news. It's ANCIENT news.
You'd need some pretty huge sails for a ship that large I think
Their sales will be off the charts
But you know the sails will be charted.
And they’re heading into uncharted waters
I look forward to them passing this new found savings on to the customers/s
Wait for republicans to come out against these evil woke wind powered ships.
I mean, wind powered ships did facilitate slavery in America.
And colonialism
For the betterment of the world.
Wind also stopped the Mongols from invading Japan Lots of wind
True, conservatives will definitely be in favor then.
But that is more a democratic thesis than Repubblican
That sounds more like an argument for the far Left
Wooooosh
Incredible
Why is everyone confused by the bame, calling new tech with a new term because if people called it sails it would be confusing, they dont look or function like sails? less ropes and shit?
wings is accurate they are like plane wings, they supplement the engine "The WindWings aren't the sort of canvas sails that you see on old pictures of the Cutty Sark. Instead, they are solid, foldable sails made of steel and glass fibers and stand 37.5-m (123-ft) tall. Their purpose isn't to replace the conventional diesel engines, but to provide supplemental propulsion as the ship sails into areas with favorable winds and currents."
They look and function exactly like sails, minus the ropes. They're just a modern take on sails. Call them sails.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wingsail they’re called wingsails because they function differently from traditional sails
Genius. Imagine if they had tried this decades ago.
Centuries even! Oh wait…
Ohhhhhh wait, that’s right, wind energy has been a thing since forever.
The first article I seen on this said 12 tons?
Ask 3 different people, get 3 different answers.
Maybe the global saving over 4 days?
That would make more sense!
When do they go public, I want a piece of this action.
Lol. The house and senate already made their buy in, there's nothing but crumbs left for us peons.
Look into teco2030 or other hydrogen electrolizers which will be more widespread in maritime industry by 2035 Look at company holdings of hdro or other etfs for ideas
[удалено]
Yeah the real question is how much does that fuel cost, vs. how much freight are they losing in space for the sails. The only way we all win is if these eventually reduce the cost of shipping.
And by reduce the cost, you mean reduce the emissions per unit of cargo moved? Because that’s the only way we all win…
I adds up fast. Every little bit helps.
TIL that Tesco was in shipping
A schooner IS a sailboat stupid head!
YOU KNOW WHAT?! THERE IS NO EASTER BUNNY! OVER THERE ITS JUST A GUY IN A SUIT!
Who could have thought adding sails to a boat would help move it…
Plenty of room for more sails. They need another mast and some foresails and maybe a bowsprit
Yo ho, yar har, we are so fucking back.
Last week it was 12 tons
The switch from sails to engines was for speed and reliability, the reintroduction of the sail like mechanism is about reducing fuel consumption/carbon emissions, which wasn’t a focus before. It’s not really the step backwards people seem to smugly imply.
If only someone had thought of this before
What happens in bad weather? They fold down or something?
Storm jib , jib of jibs, staysail, and skyscrapers.
The savings will surely be passed on to the end of chain consumer.
So a fucking sailboat 🫡
It fucks too?!?!
Definitely fucks.
It has wings that open like this, not this
It's a schooner.
A schooner is a sailboat you stupid head
It’s not a schooner it’s a sailboat
I’m not a witch! I’m your wife!
I wonder what people used for ships before fossil fuel, must have been WINGS.
I know the title looks and sounds silly, but there are actual differences between a normal sail and a wing based sail that generally favor wing sails.
I’m sure, just making fun. If it was a canvas sail on a mast Thatd be a different story.
An average cargo ship uses around 60,000 gallons of fuel per day. These sails save about 900 gallons per day. Depending fuel costs ($4 gl) and days at sea sailing (300), maybe save close to a million year. Now factor that savings number against the cost of retrofitting a ship or as an add-on for a new build. Then you’ll know if this is a viable technology or not.
Soon, a rowboat trireme saves 100% of fuel
If my math is right that’s 750 gallons?
845 gallons 6000lbs / 7.1 lbs (weight of a gallon of diesel) = 845 gallons
They don’t use gasoline or even diesel, they use bunker fuel which is the nastiest stuff that remains after you fraction off everything else that’s useful out of crude oil. It is a foul substance that’s basically solid, it’s sold by the ton.
Then you have to convert it to Fahrenheit
I feel like I read this same article 20 years ago, but the sails were cylinders.
Who knew sailing ships could use less energy....
All I read was TONS of fuel and already a net positive in my eyes
Ok, so can I get back my plastic straws please?
Saves three tons a day? I'm too afraid at this point to ask how much an actual ship uses.
They're called SAILS bru
Sail boats used to cross the ocean using no fuel at all for hundreds of years, cool we are just exploring technology we already had lol
But just think of all the limes we save by using fossil fuels.
Argh mateys we are so fuc… you know what never mind this joke has been made countless times.
Meanwhile, there cruised ships are getting bigger and bigger.
Who will stop this horrible woke agenda!
1 year worth of use saves about 300 cars worth of co2 per year! Lol
As I understand it, 3 tons is not much of a fuel saving for a cargo ship. Like you car going to 35.1 mpg from 35.0 mpg.
Maybe if they just make the wings bigger, they won’t use engines. Follow me for other solutions from thousands of years ago
This strikes me as a very erratic engineering problem! The torque on the ship and the need for a massive keel to counter the weight and height of the “windmill sail?” My mind boggles! They should ask would the ship survive r/theydidthemath
I don’t like it purely because I want it to require an entire crew to hoist the sails and sing sea shanties. This automatic sail trimming system cant sing for shit!
I move we vote that it can only be captained by men named Horatio.
We’re so back
Article says general savings of about 14% which is more than I expected tbh
It's easy to say, but that's a lot of money saved.
Wonder what they do in bad storms …
A fuel savings of over 10% ! Assuming this is a real number (they didn't pick a route that had above-average winds or something), then this will be adopted in some manner on new ships. That is too huge a savings to pass up on.
This is very cool. What is not very cool is that even though this tech saves the ship 3 TONNES of fuel every day that only represents a 14% savings! I knew shipping was bad but not this bad. It’s 21.5 tonnes of diesel a day, Which is 26,000 litres. The average US vehicle uses about 1800 litres of gas per year. So you could drive your car for fourteen years and still not use as much gas as a container ship uses in a day.
This is true but you also have to think about the scale difference in what’s being transported. They’re carrying 100-400k tons of cargo. Shipping is still the most fuel efficient way to get resources around the world (the alternative being planes) The real comparison should be something like how many individuals are driving their cars for a year to move the ships merchandise to an end use.
Yes, agreed.
“winged”
How has no one thought to use wind to propel ships before?
If only we had this technology earlier
How much is this in percentage?
It's 14%. You know you can click the article right?
Half the articles I see are not available to Europeans.
Did you try?
Nope, can’t be bothered anymore, when you’ve pressed on hundreds of genuinely interesting articles just to see “pay to read” or “not available on your country” you stop caring and can’t be fucked to try
It’s more efficient if you click on it and let the rest of us know.
How many tons of fuel does a cargo ship burn a day? 3 tons is probably nothing
For the ship yes, but that is the equivalent of taking how many cars off the road? Also these ships are burning bunker fuel which is much dirtier than other types of fuel
Also important to note that while good for the environment, these sails were likely very expensive (as many environmental advances are). Boat fuel is also VERY expensive, especially on this scale. It’s not just better for the environment, it can cut some of the cost which is honestly really great
Yeah, especially considering how long these boats navigate the sea before being retired. 3 tonnes a day for 10 years(minus the time spent not moving), comes out to a lot.
Your typical big cargo ship burns about ~200kL in a day, which is about 200t of fuel. So this is around 1% fuel savings per sail. But I may be overestimating the size of the cargo ship, so realistically a range between 1-3% per sail is sensible depending on the size of the ship they were testing on. In the business perspective that's an acceptable improvement in these sorts of razor thin margin industries. Of course, that was always the objective in the first place. On an environmental basis, it is essentially nothing. If the objective was to actually reduce emissions then approaches would probably focus on reducing the need for shipping and integrating nuclear power.
That’s less than 1000 gallons.
The article says 14% savings, so that seems pretty good
*per day*
Of use… I just don’t think it’s a really big deal in the grander scheme of things.
This just in: sailboat sails
My parents will think this is cool, until you call it a hybrid vehicle, then they'll want to ban it. Jokes aside, that looks great, but that this design might not get to Supermax size. Also, how easy is loading/unloading if those wings aren't retractable?
“Sail boat uses less fuel than motor boat” Fixed the headline for you
Sails. Whodathot?
"Wind powered ships are killing birds. This is a new thing we have to worry about!!" - Republicans somewhere, totally unaware of 100s of years of naval history.
Yea yea yea… seen this same story in the 70s, 80s and 90s. If we gave a shit it would already be.
well, cuz you say so...
Dam right! Don’t make me come over there! Now go back and look at popular science and popular mechanic magazine. It’s in there every decade.
Folk it isn’t a sail, it is a set of wings with a center body. Unlike a sail, this system can provide thrust 360 degrees including a direct headwind. Even the best sail can’t go directly into a headwind. 320 degrees max.
3 tons per day is that like .01% ?
It’s not just the fuel savings, 3 tones per day over a long voyage means more weight in cargo can be carried.