Superheating the Hulls of Seagoing Ships Could Reduce Drag for Super-Efficient Sailing

Aside from the lifespan of the metal, how about something more important, what is this going to do to marine life? Boiling kelp and plankton and whatever else gets close to it can't be good. What happens when a super heated ship passes though the spillage of another vessel? There is a LOT more issues to worry about than just how long the metal will last... which SHOULD be one of the last things they worry about!

Playing Devil's Advocate since 1978

"The only constant in the universe is change"
-Heraclitus of Ephesus 535 BC - 475 BC

wow code zero do you have anything els to do but read this. you are the first to respond with a stupid tree hugging idea or problem. I like the fact that you are stirring up conversation but at least think before you talk. I am sure there is a lot of work ahead before this becomes the norm. let’s find out if it is feasible before we kill the idea. I wish these guys the best on their ventures. Will it work on my speed boat so I don’t have to burn so much fuel enjoying my favorite recreation, water sports.

I'm sure that there are other ways to induce a vapor layer in the laminar flow zone. Possibly, ultrasonic vibrations might do the trick, or air injection (forced air bubbles). The heated hull has other implications such as, reduction of marine growth (barnacles and such) that require periodic maintenance for removal and repainting. A heated hull could also be useful in frigid or super-cooled water to prevent ice formation.

@ winterulz

CodeZero and I have had occasion to disagree, *however* I truly believe your post to be slightly more negative than was called for. He was right to raise the unintended effects question, after all. I mean, you're giving him crap about reading the article that you posted on? And upset that he got first post? Some people find things they are interested in, and follow them closely.

You should try it with something besides trolling. Maybe... grammar, spelling, or punctuation?

How to respond...

I'm not at all against protecting the only thing we have, the earth. Most will cry "Save the Planet", but guess what, if we frag everything we see, we will only end up killing ourselves off, the planet will continue to exist (unless we blow it up in the process) Finding a way to shuttle goods with as little energy as possible is a good idea, however, as is often seen with large companies, they only care about THEMSELVES and THEIR profit margin, not what will happen to everything else around them. I'm not going to bother trying to post any proof of that, you don't have to look too hard in the recent past to find it. The way the artical was presented, it said nothing of what this effect will have on the medium in which it travels. Quite an important fact, missing. And it goes on to state that one of it's most important factors is how long will the metal last... That, is just sad.

@DMorrisPE, not bad ideas, however I can see that they would be much harder to implement than the articles proposed ideas, I do see this tech as a plus for our coast guard and arctic vessels.

@combatko, we meet again lol. I do enjoy that there are still a few intelligent minds around that I can point/counterpoint with and not have it fall into a useless high school flame war, and for that sir, I thank you.

@winterulz, I do have other things to do. Not sure what that has to do with anything, and for me getting first post, that was chance and chance only. I am not one that thrives off of running to the front and waving my "First" flag. Sorry. Never claimed that there wasn't more work to be done, in fact my last statement sums it up, "There is a LOT more issues to worry about than just how long the metal will last.."

So please, if you want to debate, have at it. But I will not have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.

Playing Devil's Advocate since 1978

"The only constant in the universe is change"
-Heraclitus of Ephesus 535 BC - 475 BC

Would also make for an effective anti-pirate measure.

You'd also have to consider how much energy you'd save on drag vs how much it'd cost to superheat the entire hull in frigid water.

yea I appoligize all that was a little more than necisarry. it just seems that as soon as anyone comes up with a good idea everyone has 100 reasons it is not fesable. I think this has promise and look foward to reading more on it.

@ Codezero

I can see where your coming from with the enviornmental impacts. But wouldnt the heated hull only be able to effect the surronding water for a few feet, due to the relativly cold water it would be coming in contact with?

I might be wrong, my thermodynamics is alittle rusty. But I would think that the effects of the heat would dissapate quickly and not a huge enviornmental factor.

@Solace

I believe that once the hull is initially heated the upkeep energy requirements would be relativly low. Also the energy saved in making a several hundred ton ship near frictionless are fairly massive.

Question for all the geniuses here:

if the hull had little to no friction, wouldn't that cause it to drop like a rock through air?

@ Stompinstu

No, it has little to no forward motion friction. The ship would still displace water, and therefore float.

I think this would have more applications in the military capacity than the shipping industry... think of how much faster torpedo/attack boats would be if equipped with this technology.

Overcoming friction is one of the biggest problems in torpedoes...

This, combined with CodeZero's post and several unrelated thoughts bouncing around my skull, has caused me to come up with an incredibly impractical idea on how to heat the water around the ship. Waist heat could be caught using the same method air conditioning uses, and stored in cylinders of, say, insulated thorium, because it's awesome. They would then be installed in sockets inside the sides of the ship, and they would then use the air conditioning method to heat the outermost layer, allowing for this idea to work. Or maybe the ships could use the ground effect.

You'd also have to think about what turning the entire hull into a giant frying pan (it'd have to be /at least/ hotter than the boiling point of water, probably much hotter) would have on the cargo and crew.

@B.V. yeah a great point. Military application in this would change naval warfare. not just torpedoes but ANY naval ship or submarine. I am curious what effects this would have on a submarines stealth capability.

How do they propose making this heat. Hopefully not burning more gas.

With nuclear powered ships it would not cause as much of a delima I would imagine.

But what if the their was a malfunction and the ship just started boiling water. I wander if it could boil it fast enough that it would sink in its own steam bubble?

You do have to wonder how they plan to heat the hull of the ship to such a temperature, while not heating the rest of the ship, or even cooking the crew..

Thinking about it, if they do come up with a way of heating a super massive hull to the required temperature, without using more fuel / energy than it would take to propel the vessel in the normal manner, they may just have discovered something a little more important than making ships faster...... Nuclear fusion??

oh delicous delimas /ponder is that a new kind of sub ? or perhaps a wrap? id think this would be best used in really big ships esp nuculear powered ones waste heat to heat the hull

nuclear fusion i wish but thats a whiles off *(

heated hulls would be no problemo for the crew think tankers double hulls man figure out some way to make the hulls totally water repellent as welll ... no corrosion no barnacles

@inaka_rob,

I think it would be easier to heat a projectile first, and then maybe if the tech is improved they might move it over to vessels.

With a torpedo there isn't the danger of cooking the crew alive, or worrying about sustaining the high temperature, or any of the other roadblocks others have mentioned.

It also makes me wonder about if similar things are possible for object moving through the air...air is a fluid after-all...

@inaka_rob
This would be very bad for stealth. The boiling water would make a lot of sound from the bubbles poping. I'd say that it would so loud that the other navys would hear you from the other side of the ocean. This may be good for nucler carriers. They have the power and don't need to care as much about stealth because they natrualy aren't all that stealthly.

@Garbageman, you are 100% correct, the temp change would for a single vessle only extend a few feet beyond the hull itself. However, with the larger ships extending below sea level upwards of 70 feet and are around 1000 feet long and 250 feet wide, that's quite a foot print. Now extend that area with, say a 5 foot extenstion for thermal death, 10 foot for thermal injury and 15 feet+ for minimual/no impact. On the open ocean, 1 ship this size, seems like a minimual impact, put this vessel in harbor and now you start to increase the impact exponentially, with the potental area of effect reaching every area of the surrounding water, now, add more ships.

For military applications, I wonder if the speed of the projectile itself might impede the benifits of a super heated casing. Forward speed has to happen slower than the time it takes for the water to heat in the 1st place (seeing as we are now talking about 360 degree encapsulation by the media we are working through)... if you exceed that time you negate the affects. Wonder what the shock of 212+ degrees temp on water that's close to freezing and at many times the pressure... Oh and also, I don't think explosives take well to super high temps either..

I still think the super massive cargo dirigible idea is better suited overall when enviromental impacts are factored in as well as cost. With the constant improvements in nanocarbon fibers, and aerogels, it's got more promise, personally.
Playing Devil's Advocate since 1978

"The only constant in the universe is change"
-Heraclitus of Ephesus 535 BC - 475 BC

Other than frying fish along the way I can't see any good of this. I doubt one could heat a hull and possibly save any energy. It has already been proven how to use sailing towers to effectively use the wind to assist. Cousteau's Sailboat proved it. Why isn't it being used?

@CodeZero
Why would they superheat the hull when the vessel is docked at the pier? It doesn't have to be on all the time...

I used to work on boats and I know for a fact that water friction has a huge effect on mileage. A boat with a newly repainted hull has a big difference that you can instantly feel once you're in the water again.

It would be interesting to see if any temperatures lower than 100C (why does a science magazine use F...) has any effect. If so, a design cooling the engine and heating the hull might be feasible.

@DMorrisPe, those were good ideas. Especially the ultrasonics. You could use the entire hull as speaker, like those greeting cards that use the cardboard as the speaker body. I would think it wouldn't take much power, probably a small percent of the power super heating the hull would take.

To the patent office. ->

@theredchaser, didn't say while docked that would just be daft. But I can see that it would be used until the very last minute, and as I'm sure you know, the ships captains, like truck drivers, do things "off the books" in order to make a few extra bucks. Cutting corners here and there isn't beyond a lot of people, not a far stretch, if this tech was in production, that it would be abused.

Playing Devil's Advocate since 1978

"The only constant in the universe is change"
-Heraclitus of Ephesus 535 BC - 475 BC

A few of you are over complicating this article. the surface area of the earth's oceans is approx. 361,648,138 sq km. What's the surface area of a ship? Or all the ships of the world combined? And that's not even considering the amount energy it would take to heat the surrounding water. Rest assured that heated hulls of ships is a none issue granted there aren't any biproducts of the heating released in the ocean.

Well said Droid2k. However I got to say I admire codezero's thoughts on the subject. Two internet clicks to both of you.

The article fails to mention how much energy it would take to heat a ships hull to 220 degrees F. If it takes 10,000 gallons of diesel fuel to heat the ships hull on an oceanic trip from one port to the other to save 5,000 gallons in fuel, that doesn't make sense. You can't get something for nothing. If it takes more energy to heat the hull than you'll save than what's the point?

Kinda like what we're doing with biodiesel and ethanol. It takes more energy to make than the lowered emissions in the end. You gotta look at the whole life cycle, not just the final product.

well if the hull is superheated enough to actually start the leidenfrost effect the total effect would be fractions of an inch, not feet. The layer that buffers the ship against friction, also insulates the water beyond it from the heat of the hull. Its why a large 'bubble' of water can be kept dancing across the surface of a pan for minutes at a time, or as the article mentions, you can stick your hand into liquid nitrogen(for just a moment).

Likely you wouldnt continue the heating once you approached shore and your port of call. It would be, inconvenient... But theres no reason that once out to sea that a hot hull would pose any problems for the crew. We keep hot and cold things separate all the time, and you really dont spend all that much time touching the hull of a ship generally anyway.

Those of you wondering about super fast objects like torpedos.. they have a different technology thats already in use, and most likely works better for them. See 'supercavitation'.

couldnt ultrasonic vibrations cause damage to animals that use echolocation as a navigational tool? liek dolphins or whales?

We're on the brink of so many jumps in technology its impossible to conceive what will come in our lifetimes.