Talk:Rotor ship

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Alcyone and Malavard-Cousteau's "Turbosail"[edit]

I took out the reference to the Alcyone because the small amount of technical information I can find online (from reasonably canonical sources - the Cousteau Society mainly) about the Turbosail suggests it does not use the Magnus Effect. See, for example

http://www.limsi.fr/RS2005/meca/aero/aero11/index.html, a study about aerodynamic simulation which discusses the turbosail and includes a description as well as a photo of the inside. It's pretty clear from the picture that the thing doesn't rotate.

See also http://www.cousteau.org/en/downloadfiles/alcyone_and_turbosail.pdf,[dead link] which describes the device again, albeit with a terrible picture. Joachim Heck 04:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<Oh, never mind. Already been done.> 128.54.74.116 06:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears from the limsi.fr link above that the Turbosail works on the Coandă effect, not the Magnus effect. —QuicksilverT @ 17:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stated performance of Flettner rotor[edit]

It would be interesting to know the source for the statements in the article about the performance. To sail at such small angles to the wind as 20 to 30 degrees is quite difficult and I think even a very efficient sail like a wingsail that can also point extremely high would require something better than that particular hull under it to get up to those sorts of angles.

I've had a quick look on the net but found no extra material that might clarify.

Does anyone have access to a primary source?

Boatmik 14:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental technology template

I'd like to replace the Environmental technology template with one that matches the standard navbox style, i.e. horizontal instead of vertical, collapsing and typically placed at the bottom of article pages. I've done a mock up of what this would look like at {{User:Jwanders/ET}}. Figured this was a big enough change that I should post before going ahead with it. Please discuss here--jwandersTalk 22:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Take a look at these pictures! Sincerely, Bernard de Go Mars (talk) 11:03, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Math?[edit]

Anyone have any reference on the mathematics behind these things? How big the rotors should be, how fast they should turn, etc? --Doradus (talk) 01:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So there was no propulsive force under the water? It didn't have a propellor and the "sails" didn't extend below the ship did they? Could it really propel itself using only the force generated by rotating the "sails"? Do they spin in the same direction? It would seem that they would produce a negligle force compared to just acting as rigid sails.167.7.17.3 (talk) 18:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Points of sail[edit]

I was wondering whether a rotorship could sail in all winddirections. See image right:

Also, is it affected by reductions depending on the direction? (such as conventional sails) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.186.28 (talk) 12:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It can't go downwind, oddly enough. See the reference I just added to the article. Which I found by straightforward Googling. --Teratornis (talk) 05:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Extra info at http://books.google.com/books?id=eAAAAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA70&lpg=PA70&dq=rotor+sail&source=bl&ots=xSUYlMKaNc&sig=9GDzOSzqbYErnJySv1__h4TVxbc&hl=nl&ei=B5WrSqmQB9fajQe9qdj3Bw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7#v=onepage&q=rotor%20sail&f=false —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.176.215.15 (talk) 12:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added info[edit]

Added this info, don't remove yet improve references. Article needs rewrite, suggest Rotor sailing to stock info on invention, ... ==Types== [[Image:Rotorsail (oxy)hydrogen hybrid ship.JPG|thumb|right|150px]] Several types of rotor ships can be distingueshed, similar to sailing ships. Both rotor sail-assist (hybrid) ships exist, aswell as rotor sail only ships. [[Wind Ship Development Corporation]] has also worked out 2 types of sail assist setups, for use with different ships sizes. <ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=eAAAAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA70&lpg=PA70&dq=rotor+sail&source=bl&ots=xSUYlMKaNc&sig=9GDzOSzqbYErnJySv1__h4TVxbc&hl=nl&ei=B5WrSqmQB9fajQe9qdj3Bw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7#v=onepage&q=rotor%20sail&f=false Rotor sail assist and rotor sail only ships]</ref>.

Move[edit]

Rotor Ship → Rotor ship — Can the page be moved to Rotor ship, the capital s is annoying —KVDP 17:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. By the way, you can list simple spelling fixes like this under uncontroversial moves to get them done faster. Jafeluv (talk) 11:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The applicable guideline is WP:TITLE#Lowercase. --Teratornis (talk) 18:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image[edit]

wil improve points of sail image soon, coriolis force does not change rotation direction of rotor.

Parts of a rotor ship

New image uploaded, could'nt replace original one, but requested to delete that one; will probably be done soon by admins

Image seems to have been deleted from article, not sure why. See

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rotor_ship&oldid=369036251 91.182.217.92 (talk) 08:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No idea who removed it, but I'd support its removal. The whole concept of a rotor ship needs a perspective view to illustrate it. This side-on view adds nothing, just because of the view angle. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the direction of spin on your points of sail image is wrong. (Berwin (talk) 23:08, 19 July 2015 (UTC))[reply]

why is the design still being investigated?[edit]

It is stated the design was abandoned by Flettner due to low efficiency; but then there's the Uses today section -- so what happened? Why is it worth investigating after all? Doceddi (talk) 21:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

However rigid aerofoil sails, like the Walker Wingsail, are still more efficient. They are more effective at powering the ship and they also avoid the need for a powered rotor. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
thanks -- any refs for that? so we could work it into the article. it's sort of non sequitur as it stands .. Doceddi (talk) 22:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Rotor Efficiency at Different Wind Speeds[edit]

In this article, there is the statement: "Flettner's spinning bodies were vertical cylinders; the basic idea was to use the Magnus effect. The idea worked, but the propulsion force generated was less than the motor would have generated if it had been connected to a standard marine propeller.[" "

This statement is questionable. I suspect that the Flettner rotor is less efficient than a standard marine propeller at low wind velocities. However, at higher wind speeds the Flettner rotor is probably more effiicient than connecting the motor to a marine propeller. This situation is due to the fact that at a higher wind speed the rotor is utilizing energy from the wind in addition to the energy from the motor.

I am not an aeronautical engineer, so I am reluctant to enter a "correction" into this article. But I do think that the Flettner rotor is a reasonable invention that is being misrepresented by brief comments that do not include the full aspects of Magnus Effect aerodynamics. I think that Wikipedia and its reader-writers need to develop a much better descriptive section on the Flettner rotor.and its relative efficiency under different situations. 69.255.43.84 (talk) 18:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"is probably more effiicient "
On one hand we have a source from NASA saying that it isn't. On the other we have considerable money spent on E-Ship 1, suggesting that at least someone believes in them. It's going to need robust sources to say anything different. A university library and the Journal on Naval Architecture (or whatever the nearest equivalent is) should have some coverage of E-Ship 1. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One silly question[edit]

I am trying so translate this page into Slovenian - but I am not sure if I got everything right. If I understand correctly the rotors are powered by engine (to get them spinning) and at the same time with wind, which causes them to spin faster which produces lift, like conventional sail? If there is no wind, the rotors produce small amount of thrust, because they are being spinned by the engines? Basically in no wind it is better to use engine driving the propellers?

Would it work without the engine turning the rotors? On wind power alone?

Could the rotors basically like a windmill turning propelers?

thanks--Pawlin (talk) 13:02, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You need both wind and engine working together to make a Flettner rotor move. If there is dead calm (which is quite rare), then the motor needs to drive a conventional propeller.
I believe that in practice, one engine, one generator and two electric motors (one for the rotors, one for a propeller) has been the usual fix for this. The rotors are usually driven by electric motors because the engine room is low down for stability and an electric drive is the simplest way to transmit the drive. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a Windmill ship, which does exist at small scales. It would need a windmill, rather than Flettner rotors. The Flettner rotor is (according to its advocates) more efficient than such. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:11, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
: Thanks Andy --Pawlin (talk) 15:14, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edits of this date[edit]

In re: today's edit:

Please note, my [citation needed] additions are just making explicit the observations of another editor, who placed the June 2014 (> 1 year old) refimprove tag.

Otherwise, the following was done:

  • Key terms like "rotor sail" were made consistent in appearance (not some appearances hyphenated, others not).
  • The Further reading section was created, and a properly formatted reference added.
  • The Background section was created, so that material did not need to appear only in the lead, and so that the lead content would begin to be sourced. At present, none of the content in the lead is sourced.
  • Noted that the lead does not reflect the actual content of the article, and that, as noted, it currently presents information that is sourced nowhere in the article, at all.
  • Added the "floating" Downie citation to its appropriate point in the Background section.
  • Clarified the meaning of the "lng" (LNG, liquified natural gas) abbreviation in a reference title.
  • Noted that an image content constituted OR: this image is original editor material that is using WP to accomplish self-publication of original content. Using original editor-generated content, graphic or textual, is prohibited by WP.
  • Tags were added to wholly unsourced sections, and the relevant tags for the pervasive problems, were added to the article opening. Readers deserve to understand the actual status of the material they are reading.

50.232.187.66 (talk) 15:39, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed a lot of the "items not in body of article" tags. It was dead easy to find very good refs (one is a book by EINSTEIN!). IP editor seems to have gotten in to a real tagging tizzy.SamanthaB55 (talk) 08:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Points of sail diagram[edit]

This should be removed. It is of course sheer WP:OR. However it's also hard to read and simply inaccurate. It's hard to see what it means or is conveying to the reader. One thing it might usefully convey is the rotation direction of the rotor and the fact that this needs to reverse to sail either side of the wind. We can't see this from the tiny annotation on the diagram. The diagram is also symmetrical, implying (incorrectly) that the rotor ship can sail equally as well into the wind as downwind. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Original Source[edit]

This article appears to be an abstract of the material on the following website:

http://www.bluebird-electric.net/ship_boat_design_building/monorotor_wind_assisted_ship_propulsion.htm

The Bluebird site has more extensive info and images than the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekconklin (talk • contribs) 01:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Rotor ship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:33, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Rotor ship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:18, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rotor_ship&oldid=1213147492"