Humphree stabilisation system?

[jfm]

I genuinely think people didn't think of it. You either were a hydrofoil or you weren't and in between wasn't considered. Why put fins on and all that entails if you weren't going to take full advantage of it....

If you look to the sailing world it is only in the last few years that appendages with a vertical lift element, that are not full on hydrofoils, are actually being explored. There is DSS which is a horizontal foil to counteract heeling. There are the new IMOCA 60s that now have extremely curved daggerboards to create lift, but not lift the hull out of the water. These appendages have only become viable as performance enhancers due to advances in hull design and materials. Put a vertical lift fin on a 70s IOR racer and it did probably slow it down.

I agree your general point rbs but I'm not sure DSS proves it. Dss produces benefit in the form of resisting heel, which reduces drag and keeps the sail upright. Or putting it another way, for a given heel angle DSS means less beam or keel weight is needed. Or putting it yet another way DSS replaces a canting keel, without needing the drag of the dagger boards that the canting keel forces you to have. The actual net lift upwards on the hull and reduced drag from that effect per se is a side show compared with all the other great benefits of DSS

 

[grumpy_o_g]

I'd always assumed that fin stabs increased drag because of the lift generated to keep the hull level plus the power needed to move them, especially given that drag from a stab at a high positive or negative angle of attack would be a lot higher than one at zero degrees to minisise drag in smooth seas so I'm intrigued by the potential benefits - which raises the question are fin stabilser systems optimised in smooth water against speed/fuel consumption when they are set up post install? That would seem to make sense. And presumably precession-based systems like Seakeeper would see some of the benefit as they would keep the hull level even if they didn't add lift.

Which brings me to the last thought - just about every add-on I've heard of for powerboats that increases lift seems to offer (or at least claim) a boost in economy. Why don't designers just build more lift into the original design?

 

[rwoofer]

I agree your general point rbs but I'm not sure DSS proves it. Dss produces benefit in the form of resisting heel, which reduces drag and keeps the sail upright. Or putting it another way, for a given heel angle DSS means less beam or keel weight is needed. Or putting it yet another way DSS replaces a canting keel, without needing the drag of the dagger boards that the canting keel forces you to have. The actual net lift upwards on the hull and reduced drag from that effect per se is a side show compared with all the other great benefits of DSS

Was really using DSS in the context of a fin with a vertical lift component. Until then fins were only ever used for their lateral component of lift ie. keels, dagger boards. Probably the most well known DSS equipped boat, Wild Oats, has a plethora of other fins, earning it the moniker, the Swiss Army knife.

As you say the fin part of a canting keel was never used for its lift properties in any way, it seems. It is just there to hold the bulb away from the hull.

 

[jfm]

Yep, and as I say I'm not arguing with you. I realised you meant vertical lift when you said DSS. The lift component however is lift on leeward side only, so the lift is used to induce roll (ie counteract heel), and any actual lift of the hull vertically is a bit incidental. But your fundamental point (that new things are invented that just weren't thought of before) is absolutely right and I agree with you

As you say canting keels are all about moving the keel bulb to windward not generating lift from the foil, but in a perfect world a canting keel foil would rotate about an axis running along the foil, so you could get a foil downforce to windward. Given the complexity/reliability of canters already, I'm not sure an additional axis of rotation is going to be too popular but it's a nice theoretical idea!

 

[petem]

JFM, did you ever get to the bottom of what the patent covers? There was a suggestion (perhaps my misunderstanding) that it only applied to 'at rest' electric stabilization.

 

[jfm]

JFM, did you ever get to the bottom of what the patent covers? There was a suggestion (perhaps my misunderstanding) that it only applied to 'at rest' electric stabilization.

Yes in terms of the written terms of the patent, but not got fully to the bottom of the litigation because the judgment hasn't been published and wont be for a few months
As I understand it and very much in summary, the original CMC patent application tried to patent their electric stabs set up but there is tons of prior art on electric fin stabs going back to 1930s so CMC got push back and hence changed their patent applic to "for use at anchor" and got the patent on that footing (as you said). The rightness or wrongness of the judgement involves lengthy submissions made by both sides but in overall summary I think the judge got it wrong. Sure, that's just a personal opinion and one tries to default always to a position that courts are correct but very occasionally courts get it wrong and imho this is one of those occasions. Happy to agree to disagree on that

So CMC have their patent on their form of electrically actuated stabs for at-anchor use, and of course whether judge was right/wrong is perhaps academic. Just on the MM point about "everyone challenged the patent so the CMC product must be incredibly good": of course the patent challenge was only about the use of electric motors per se, something that has prior art in the 1930s, and there is nothing else about CMC's product that anyone else wants to "copy", so that point holds no water, but as I say CMC have the patent

So what next? Well as ever there is devil in detail in the terms of the patent. I don't want to go into bags of detail here but I'd expect that we will see electrically actuated fins from plenty of other makers despite this patent. Naiad are still showing them on their website (USA of course). It goes without saying that this is a good thing: electric fins are important for small boats and some competition/clever engineering will be useful generally and in engineering out the horrible noise of the things

The huge increasing market for fin stabs on smaller leisure boats will in any case lead to plenty of innovation generally. I reckon in 10 years our current flappy things might look a bit old fashioned!

 

[MapisM]

Just on the MM point about "everyone challenged the patent so the CMC product must be incredibly good": of course the patent challenge was only about the use of electric motors per se....

Ok, so CMC products are awful but the electric technology makes a lot of sense.
As I recall, you started dismissing (sort of) also the advantages of electric stabs in general, back in the days of BA installation.
By this rate, you might as well have CMC stabs on your next boat....

 

[jfm]

Ok, so CMC products are awful but the electric technology makes a lot of sense.
As I recall, you started dismissing (sort of) also the advantages of electric stabs in general, back in the days of BA installation.
By this rate, you might as well have CMC stabs on your next boat....

Umm, heck, where is this coming from? Ref first sentence: I'm absolutely not thinking/saying that.
And ref second sentence, are you referring to Bart's stabiliser-install thread? In which I didn't ever criticise electric fins or CMC product, right? IIRC I merely (a) said check out the heat thing (the warning light being CMC's clearly wrong statement that heat is low because friction is low), and (b) questioned CMC's claim that 0.6m sq electric fins are as good as 1.0m hydraulic fins due to some wonder properties of electric actuators (my worry being vindicated by subsequent youtube, although Bart's choice of less at-anchor performance against other benefits of smaller fins is perfectly rational)

 

[MapisM]

Umm, heck, where is this coming from?

Well, and where did my point about "incredibly good" CMC product come from?
Yes, I did say that their competitors (NOT me!) "de facto appointed CMC as the builder of something that all of them would like to copy", but that's a simple observation of facts, rather than a point of mine.

 

[jfm]

Well, and where did my point about "incredibly good" CMC product come from?

Well, for starters in #31 of this thread. I said "This [challenge by CMC's competitors ] doesn't amount (as you seem perhaps to think) to some kind of proof that CMC is the best there is, tohugh you are free to make that conclusion of course."
and you replied
"...are you for real?
Of course that's the conclusion I'm drawing. I can't honestly think of another one..."
So you said the patent thing proved that CMC= the best there is. I hope you agree "best there is" = "incredibly good" (?)(!)

Yes, I did say that their competitors (NOT me!) "de facto appointed CMC as the builder of something that all of them would like to copy", but that's a simple observation of facts, rather than a point of mine.

Heck. The competitors cared only the patent's restriction of use of electric motors; they didn't want to copy any other feature of CMC. That they wanted to copy CMC stabs generally , which i think is what you say above, is your point not an observation of facts. The fact is they wanted to "copy" only the electric part of CMC, but "copy" would be a strong word considering there is 1932 and much other prior art accepted by the lowest court of electric motor powered fin stabilisers, following which bump in the road CMC cleverly re-drafted their patent applic to cover only "at anchor" use of the undisputed prior art. If you want to say others want to "copy" CMC's "invention" of at-anchor use of the prior art, then feel free, but you have no factual basis to say others want to "copy" CMC on anything other than just that point

 

[MapisM]

Well, for starters in #31 of this thread...

Blimey jfm, talk about cherry picking and grasping at straws. I would give you the benefit of the doubt, if it weren't that I know how good your memory is!
You know as well as I do that we have already done this point to death by now - with apologies to other readers of this thread, if any. And here we are again?!?!?

From my post #45, in reply to your good self, when you made exactly the same point that you are now reiterating:
You are rather manipulating my words, instead.
I never said "the challenge means that CMC is the best there is".
That's YOUR wording, and to anyone who followed my train of thought - as you obviously did - I hope it's crystal clear that what I meant in my post #31 is that the patent challenge indeed leads to the conclusion which you now agreed is obvious, i.e. the one related to the technology being somewhat "better".

Besides, you are now accusing me to have "no factual basis to say others want to "copy" CMC on anything other than just that point" (i.e. electric actuators).
Now, this is beyond a joke.
Of course the competitors want to copy CMC "just" (!) on that point - this is exactly what I meant when I said that CMC competitors must be now regretting to have practically appointed CMC as the builder they would like to copy, if they could.
Helloooo?!? What else were we talking about, so far?!?

Btw, I replied very briefly to your post #168, to address your "Umm, heck" point, because I naively thought that you just didn't get the tongue in cheek style of my post #167.
But since it's now obvious that in your reply to petem you revamped and distorted my point only to try and dismiss it (yet again!), then fairenuff, gloves are off.

In BartW stabs thread you "didn't ever criticise electric fins or CMC product"?
Yeah, right.
Let's call a spade a spade, jfm. Summarizing your comments against CMC as a criticism would be an understatement, because they have always been more akin to a crusade.
Whether the reason is that you think Italians can't be decent engineers, or you have some vested interests in this business, or just some weird stars alignment, I don't know and TBH I couldn't care less - but this is a fact, period.
And please, don't tell me how scientific were your comments about heat, low friction, fin surface, or whatever.
C'est le ton qui fait la musique.
I don't even need to search previous threads to find examples, because there's plenty here (all bracketed text quoted from your posts):
- "cmc's patent is questionable" - concept relentlessly reiterated, up to "I think the judge got it wrong"
- "We as boat owners ... should all want this patent revoked" - though on the other hand "The curved fin ... is quite obviously a new invention (unlike an electric fin actuator)" - your conclusion being that Sleipner deserves the patent, as opposed to CMC who doesn't.
- "actuator power choice is a side show"
- "current holder of the patent isn't an outside-the-box thinker"
- "horrible noise of the things" - as if nobody else here could confirm that hydraulic actuators are comparably noisy, if not more...
...and I'm sure to have missed several other good examples just in this thread, let alone previous ones.



Oh, and last but not least, let's put all the cards on the table.

I only met the CMC owner once, more than 2 years ago, during a sea trial on BA for some fine tuning of their stabs, which back then were just recently installed.
During that sea trial, I took a short clip from BA cockpit, which I posted here:
http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthrea...el-engineering-question&p=4360917#post4360917
Afterwards, during an exchange of emails between myself, BartW and Mr.AC, where I sent him the link to that video, he asked us if he could link it also in their website.
And since neither myself nor BartW had any objection, he did.
That's the end of my involvement with CMC.
I never got any sort of return from them: no compensation, no discounts on any of their products, not even a bottle of bubbles - nothing, zero, zilch, nada (not that I expected anything, mind).
And lottery wins apart (which I can safely rule out, since I never buy any ticket), I will never be a client of theirs also in the future, for the very simple reason that I have no plans to change the old tub.

Among other stabs builders, I had a few contacts with ABT and Naiad, but only with some of their engineers who were servicing or commissioning their installations.
Therefore, in those cases, I was basically just a client dealing with their technical service.

End of the story from my part, over to you.

 

[jfm]

"didn't ever criticise electric fins or CMC product"?
Yeah, right.
Let's call a spade a spade, jfm. Summarizing your comments against CMC as a criticism would be an understatement, because they have always been more akin to a crusade....
over to you.

Mapis, we seem to be at very crossed purposes. You read much more into what I write than is actually there, eg your conclusion from two posts this week that I'm helping Paolo Vitelli buy Fairline or something, which ain't true. Likewise, you're saying I think that I have anti-Italian thinking, and that I meant bribery a while ago and that I'm saying CMC=rubbish. None of those things is correct

I absolutely stand by my statement that I never criticised CMC product in Bart's stab thread. I encouraged him on electric fins from the start and praised the whole project. I made plenty of engineering suggestions including arguing against retaining the frames and stringers, which views prevailed and turned out to match the naval architects analysis. There are many many sentences in that thread written by me saying the CMC stabs/the overall project are very good and it you promise me a virtual pint I'll quote them. Sure, I said check out the heat thing, and I said CMC's response the heat question was wrong, which it was. And I said o.6m sq fins are in my book too small, but that is personal choice/compromise. And I said that CMC's claim that 0.6m driven by electricity is better than 1.0msq driven by hydraulics is BS (and I showed with data that hydraulics are faster; of course electric will be earlier). But none of that amounts to criticism of CMC product or a crusade. It's just the chipping in of "make sure to check this point out" and non-acceptance of marketing BS that are hallmarks of this forum.

You really are reading things that I haven't written, whether that's CMC=rubbish, JFM advises Vitelli, or some bribes were paid. I will undertake to be clearer in future! Happy (and hoping!) to leave it there or at least wrap up very soon

 

[jimmy_the_builder]

Blimey jfm, talk about cherry picking and grasping at straws. I would give you the benefit of the doubt, if it weren't that I know how good your memory is!
You know as well as I do that we have already done this point to death by now - with apologies to other readers of this thread, if any. And here we are again?!?!?

From my post #45, in reply to your good self, when you made exactly the same point that you are now reiterating:
You are rather manipulating my words, instead.
I never said "the challenge means that CMC is the best there is".
That's YOUR wording, and to anyone who followed my train of thought - as you obviously did - I hope it's crystal clear that what I meant in my post #31 is that the patent challenge indeed leads to the conclusion which you now agreed is obvious, i.e. the one related to the technology being somewhat "better".

Besides, you are now accusing me to have "no factual basis to say others want to "copy" CMC on anything other than just that point" (i.e. electric actuators).
Now, this is beyond a joke.
Of course the competitors want to copy CMC "just" (!) on that point - this is exactly what I meant when I said that CMC competitors must be now regretting to have practically appointed CMC as the builder they would like to copy, if they could.
Helloooo?!? What else were we talking about, so far?!?

Btw, I replied very briefly to your post #168, to address your "Umm, heck" point, because I naively thought that you just didn't get the tongue in cheek style of my post #167.
But since it's now obvious that in your reply to petem you revamped and distorted my point only to try and dismiss it (yet again!), then fairenuff, gloves are off.

In BartW stabs thread you "didn't ever criticise electric fins or CMC product"?
Yeah, right.
Let's call a spade a spade, jfm. Summarizing your comments against CMC as a criticism would be an understatement, because they have always been more akin to a crusade.
Whether the reason is that you think Italians can't be decent engineers, or you have some vested interests in this business, or just some weird stars alignment, I don't know and TBH I couldn't care less - but this is a fact, period.
And please, don't tell me how scientific were your comments about heat, low friction, fin surface, or whatever.
C'est le ton qui fait la musique.
I don't even need to search previous threads to find examples, because there's plenty here (all bracketed text quoted from your posts):
- "cmc's patent is questionable" - concept relentlessly reiterated, up to "I think the judge got it wrong"
- "We as boat owners ... should all want this patent revoked" - though on the other hand "The curved fin ... is quite obviously a new invention (unlike an electric fin actuator)" - your conclusion being that Sleipner deserves the patent, as opposed to CMC who doesn't.
- "actuator power choice is a side show"
- "current holder of the patent isn't an outside-the-box thinker"
- "horrible noise of the things" - as if nobody else here could confirm that hydraulic actuators are comparably noisy, if not more...
...and I'm sure to have missed several other good examples just in this thread, let alone previous ones.



Oh, and last but not least, let's put all the cards on the table.

I only met the CMC owner once, more than 2 years ago, during a sea trial on BA for some fine tuning of their stabs, which back then were just recently installed.
During that sea trial, I took a short clip from BA cockpit, which I posted here:
http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthrea...el-engineering-question&p=4360917#post4360917
Afterwards, during an exchange of emails between myself, BartW and Mr.AC, where I sent him the link to that video, he asked us if he could link it also in their website.
And since neither myself nor BartW had any objection, he did.
That's the end of my involvement with CMC.
I never got any sort of return from them: no compensation, no discounts on any of their products, not even a bottle of bubbles - nothing, zero, zilch, nada (not that I expected anything, mind).
And lottery wins apart (which I can safely rule out, since I never buy any ticket), I will never be a client of theirs also in the future, for the very simple reason that I have no plans to change the old tub.

Among other stabs builders, I had a few contacts with ABT and Naiad, but only with some of their engineers who were servicing or commissioning their installations.
Therefore, in those cases, I was basically just a client dealing with their technical service.

End of the story from my part, over to you.

Mapis, we seem to be at very crossed purposes. You read much more into what I write than is actually there, eg your conclusion from two posts this week that I'm helping Paolo Vitelli buy Fairline or something, which ain't true. Likewise, you're saying I think that I have anti-Italian thinking, and that I meant bribery a while ago and that I'm saying CMC=rubbish. None of those things is correct

I absolutely stand by my statement that I never criticised CMC product in Bart's stab thread. I encouraged him on electric fins from the start and praised the whole project. I made plenty of engineering suggestions including arguing against retaining the frames and stringers, which views prevailed and turned out to match the naval architects analysis. There are many many sentences in that thread written by me saying the CMC stabs/the overall project are very good and it you promise me a virtual pint I'll quote them. Sure, I said check out the heat thing, and I said CMC's response the heat question was wrong, which it was. And I said o.6m sq fins are in my book too small, but that is personal choice/compromise. And I said that CMC's claim that 0.6m driven by electricity is better than 1.0msq driven by hydraulics is BS (and I showed with data that hydraulics are faster; of course electric will be earlier). But none of that amounts to criticism of CMC product or a crusade. It's just the chipping in of "make sure to check this point out" and non-acceptance of marketing BS that are hallmarks of this forum.

You really are reading things that I haven't written, whether that's CMC=rubbish, JFM advises Vitelli, or some bribes were paid. I will undertake to be clearer in future! Happy (and hoping!) to leave it there or at least wrap up very soon

You can always tell when it is November on the forum...

 

[MapisM]

You really are reading things that I haven't written, whether that's CMC=rubbish, JFM advises Vitelli, or some bribes were paid. I will undertake to be clearer in future!
Happy (and hoping!) to leave it there or at least wrap up very soon

Happy too.
Actually, I would have loved to read also your side of my "cards on the table" section, but I wasn't holding my breath on that.

Oh, and forgive me for one last comment re. bribing (btw, see? I told you that I'm aware of your good memory!), because this is funny.
After that discussion where you said that Lumishore was unable to sell to Ferretti for some "food chain" reasons, I asked to no less than FIVE folks their view.
All of them EN mother tongue, two are also posters here in the asylum, and one of the other three has written several books on psychology (in EN, obviously).
And as you already know without even reading further, all of them, bar none, confirmed that my interpretation of your statement was absolutely correct, beyond any reasonable doubt, and in spite of your ensuing justifications.
So, more than glad to buy you a virtual keg (a pint? Pah! That's for sissies!) for your search, if you're willing to reciprocate for my effort in searching that old thread and making a poll about how good or bad I am at reading your statements.
Deal?

 

[MapisM]

You can always tell when it is November on the forum...

Haha, thanks a bunch jtb, that really made me laugh.
Which is even more appreciated considering the reasons (and I'm not bothering you with them, but suffice to say that have to see with the health of a family member) why I'm stuck at home, with time to kill writing silly posts on the forum, rather than onboard, enjoying the last bits of good weather with a non-virtual keg, anchored in some nice spot...
Thanks again! :encouragement:

 

[BartW]

Update,

Humphree was showing their electric stab system at Metz exhibition in A’dam
( Metz is a very big professional exhibition with all kinds of suppliers to the boat building industry)
Humphree won the shows “DAME “award, in the category : Machinery, propulsion, mechanical and electrical systems and fittings
The same category, in which:
Sleibner won with their curved fins in 2013
And CMC with their electric stab system in 2011.

Humphree will commercialise the system in Europe, despite CMC’s patent
They guy on their booth said that they are working on a work around; something todo with the mounting of the fin he said. But he didn’t appear to know much about the patent nor the technicality’s from the system.
The system doesn’t have a shaft extruding the hull; the fin has a flange instead, and is mounted with screws on the flat surface of the drive assembly, a disch, flush with the hull bottom.
They claim they are outstanding with low power consumption, but I can’t see difference when comparing with CMC
also they are improving the strong ratling noise from the system, he even demo-ed the system at full movement with a lot of noice ;-). (the slow moving show demo mode was a lot more quite)
They only have one model, which is able to handle fins from 0.4m2 to 1m2
So far they haven’t installed a system in a MY, they installed one slightly different version in a catamaran.
When I asked what market they are targeting, he told me: where they can take benefit from the combined trim, pitch and roll controll from one computer, (in combi with the interceptors)
But he could not give me examples nor explain why this is a benefit.
Unfortunately there was nobody more knowledgeable on their booth.

I also went to CMC.
Mr CMC (AC) was pleased with the outcome of the patent court case, and is “in negotiation” with some of the competitots ao Humphree.
He was exited that initially most competitors where critical about their solution, and joking about it, but gradually they agreed that such a electric system has some advantages compared to traditional hydraulic systems, prooved now by this groupe court case...
Whatever they claim about the existence of electric actuators in the past, there was anybody so far, who started using a modern high spec electric drive (as used in automotive Industries) and use this in a zero speed stab system.
Mr. AC agrees that competition is good for new developements, and progress, etc…,But now that many competitors would like to use some kind of electric solution, Mr AC said that they have to respect the regulations regarding a patent, and behave accordingly, meaning: find a agreement with cmc,
Mr. AC also told me that they have plenty of new idea’s that they are working on.
He was also very proud to tell me about a few important customers that came to CMC, because of reliability problems with their (slightly new) hydraulic systems from competitors, and turned to electric stabs, mainly for the zero maintenance and hi reliability.
Mr AC told me that their business is very good, they are selling almost exclusively in bigger boats >90ft, and to many different boat yards.

 

[MapisM]

So far they haven’t installed a system in a MY, they installed one slightly different version in a catamaran.

Now, that's a weird reference, if I've ever seen one.
Sounds like a chocolate producer proud of having built a teapot out of it....

 

[kimhollamby]

Anyone understand why the servo motors for the fins appear to have 360deg rotation capability?

I saw these in the DAME Awards. The 360° capability is so they can swim a boat backwards on anchor (to prevent anchor walk).

Response of the fins was really sharp.

The system itself can cope with up to 32 devices so (theoretically at least) you can have a whole bundle of fins and interceptors working together. More realistically the suggestion was that, for vessels over a size with which the 1m3 size fin capacity you can fit two pairs of fins. At anchor, one pair will 'swim' backwards, helping maintain the boat in a static position.

Did seem really interesting technology and in fact think there is some real advantages in hooking trim and roll control up together. Especially if they can tune in the autopilot too.

 

[Nick_H]

I saw these in the DAME Awards. The 360° capability is so they can swim a boat backwards on anchor (to prevent anchor walk).

That's a great idea. The anchor walk problem would really put me off having fins, so turning them round is a very neat solution. I hope they've patented the idea, to stop CMC copying them!

 

[MapisM]

Haha, funny you should say that, N.
I perfectly understand why you can't remember all the amenities that have been discussed in the asylum on the topic of stabilizers, but actually the idea was discussed right here already back at the time of BartW installation.
And it was also mentioned to AC, the CMC owner, but while he agreed that it would have been a piece of cake to make their fins turn 180° when working at zero speed, he didn's seem to consider that a feature worth including in their products.
Not saying he was right in dismissing that (time will tell, I suppose), but just to mention how some ideas have been discussed here even before someone put them in practice...