Look into the Thistle a a fin powered boat built by Harry Bryant. His design mimics a fish fin with a double jointed offset and a spring. I built a scaled up version and it worked quite well. I found it in Human Power The Technical Journal of the IHPVA Volume 11, issue 1, Winter-Spring,1994. titled "Fin Power-Success comes from copying nature" by Harry Bryant.
Hi rowgler1, very interesting what you brought up! Thanks! I looked into it further and was really impressed with the prototype that Harry Bryant created. I'd love to hear more about your scaled up version, feel free to email me at biobyte0@gmail.com
"if that were the case we'd all still be using morse code" what he showed at that moment was the telegraph. Morse code was developed to utilize the telegraph effectively because the telegraph is a simple circuit that is either open or closed so characters have to be interpreted with open or closed states. We can equate that to the modern ones and zeroes of modern computer code. In other words, the telegraph was the simplest form of comunication computer and the internet is it's current form. It is unlikely we will find a different method in the near future so the 1s and 0s of our internet and the ASCII that we use to interpret it into readable script IS the morse code of today.
Haha, thanks for the interesting comment, @SGT_RPGames. 1) When I said, "if that were the case we'd all still be using Morse code," I showed a telegraph because, as you remarked, Morse code was invented by Samuel Morse and Alfred Vail in the 1830s to encode textual information into electrical signals suitable to be processed by the telegraph. That is why I found it relevant to show an image of the telegraph when referring to Morse code in the video. 2) In the second part of your comment, while raising some good points, I have to respectfully disagree. Morse code and binary code do differ in purpose, and here they are: - A variable-length, human-interpretable telegraph communication code is what Morse code is. Letters are represented by sequences of dots and dashes. The binary code is a fixed-length, machine-processed language of computers; it represents all types of data in a digital format using ones and zeros, not just text. Besides that, internet communication relies on complex protocols, for instance, TCP/IP, HTTP, and SSL/TLS, which control how data is transmitted, its error checking, and its security. Morse code does not embody such protocols nor embedded error-checking mechanisms. Binary data are sent using some modulation technique-amplitude, frequency, or phase modulation-to encode bits over the media. Morse Code has limited representation to alphanumeric characters, without supporting functionalities as extended in modern digital communication. Whereas the telegraph and Morse code were ground-breaking technologies which had revolutionized communication in their day, the internet grew from the computer science and networking developments of the mid-20th century, and principally from the ARPANET innovation. Such an equation seriously over-simplifies the advance of technologies; it also sidesteps the complexity of today's digital communication systems, which far outreaches the level of simplicity in Morse code and the telegraph. Therefore, it would be incorrect to refer to ones and zeroes of the Internet of today as today's Morse code.
Thanks for your comment @mubasherahmed3681. Interesting you say that, when the video is based on a scientific research paper. Now, I'm curious, what makes you think its Ai generated?
First off, the logic in your initial argument is flawed. Telegraphs don't equal propellers. Second, the tech is all well and good, but how does the submarine stop? Especially, how does it stop in an emergency situation?
Hi rorkgoose614, thanks for commenting! Well, looking at the first part of your comment, I think this is partly due to a misunderstanding. The idea that I tried to get through, is that sometimes just mere iteration and perfection of available technology may not always result in a breakthrough. Many times, innovation comes from a completely new approach. I agree with you that telegraphs do not equal propellers. It was more of an example where innovation has come from embracing a new approach. For example, the internet is our current system of communication, which did not evolve through an improvement of the telegraph but rather through innovations in computer science. Then moving on to the second part, which I think is exciting! You do bring up a good point about emergency stopping in submarines; something that I hadn't thought of. Currently, when the submarine experiences an emergency, propellers are reversed. However, due to inertia, the submarine cannot stop immediately. Now, to answer your question, I would propose adding emergency flaps to the submarine, like how airplanes use the flaps as air brakes. However, given that water is 800 times more viscous than air, meaning that water resists deformation and flow more than air does; the resistance due to flaps would develop significant drag, making the submarine decelerate faster compared to when an airplane employs flaps. I have to say, I loved this question, because it made me think. Thanks!
Thanks @ctaylor1460. Very interesting comment. I would think that the less cavitation you have in a propulsion system, the higher the efficiency. What do you think?
@@BioBytee Yes, of course. A blade propeller can spin only so fast before cavitation results; after that efficiency drops off rapidly with an increasing angular frequency vector. As a result, a propeller with a slower rotation, but with a greater blade surface area will (all things being equal) result in greater efficiency, which translates into greater speed.
@ctaylor1460 I have to say I'm finding this discussion very interesting. I wonder if your expertise are in marine engineering. Going back to our discussion, I agree with you that increasing blade surface area, with slower rotation, will inherently result in increased efficiency. However, I would argue that introducing a larger blade surface area, could increase turbulence, decreasing the vessels performance due to a larger wake formed behind the propeller. I would also argue that increased turbulence could compromise stealth, making the submarine detectable. Also large propellers have a more mass and inertia reducing the manoeuvrability. Would be great to know your thoughts on these points.
Thanks for commenting @randomnumbers84269. I think the military would definitely be interested in this technology, especially if it could help prevent their submarines from being detected by the enemy...
everything seems okay until it comes to practicality, think of a fish pullling a small boat , how big the fish should be . imagine a fish to pull a submarine , thats the amount of energy we need from the mechanism . so to move a submarine using this is feasible , but we need a fish tail which is very larger than a submarine to get it moved , lol .
True. Submarines and heavy vessels are impractical without significant advances in materials science and control mechanisms. For now, smaller crafts and robotics. But if it really works wonders. I’m sure they’ll scale, especially if it saves power.
Thanks, @srinivaskalyan9672. That's a good point you're making. Whale sharks, which are the largest fish species in the world, use sub-carangiform swimming. A fully grown adult whale shark, which is around 20 meters (approximately 66 feet) in length, might have a tail size of 3 to 4 meters (10 to 13 feet). Now, a U.S. military submarine can be 110 meters (360 feet) in length. This means it's about five times longer than a whale shark's tail. Therefore, to move a submarine, you would theoretically need a tail of 20 meters (66 feet), which accounts for around 20% of the submarine's body length-similar to the proportion of the tail to body length in a whale shark. In terms of energy, the requirement is relatively low because submarines don't have to move very fast.
I get it sir but if the point is onyl reducing the noise then this would work . But it’s about driving the submarine . Also we increase the length of the submarine to 20 to 25% based on your stats in the previous comment making it more vulnerable to torpidos and other stuff . May be if someone doesn’t care about the size then it’s fine . Also then 20 to 25% increase in length would increase material cost . Also there is a continuous stress on the links increasing the fatigue so the link should be made from expensive materials . So resources are being wasted . Even if it is wasted what was it all for reduce sound ? 😂
Look into the Thistle a a fin powered boat built by Harry Bryant. His design mimics a fish fin with a double jointed offset and a spring. I built a scaled up version and it worked quite well. I found it in Human Power The Technical Journal of the IHPVA Volume 11, issue 1, Winter-Spring,1994. titled "Fin Power-Success comes from copying nature" by Harry Bryant.
Thanks for the insights @rowgler1. I will take a look and get back to you!. Thank you!!!
Hi rowgler1, very interesting what you brought up! Thanks! I looked into it further and was really impressed with the prototype that Harry Bryant created. I'd love to hear more about your scaled up version, feel free to email me at biobyte0@gmail.com
"if that were the case we'd all still be using morse code" what he showed at that moment was the telegraph. Morse code was developed to utilize the telegraph effectively because the telegraph is a simple circuit that is either open or closed so characters have to be interpreted with open or closed states. We can equate that to the modern ones and zeroes of modern computer code. In other words, the telegraph was the simplest form of comunication computer and the internet is it's current form. It is unlikely we will find a different method in the near future so the 1s and 0s of our internet and the ASCII that we use to interpret it into readable script IS the morse code of today.
Haha, thanks for the interesting comment, @SGT_RPGames.
1) When I said, "if that were the case we'd all still be using Morse code," I showed a telegraph because, as you remarked, Morse code was invented by Samuel Morse and Alfred Vail in the 1830s to encode textual information into electrical signals suitable to be processed by the telegraph. That is why I found it relevant to show an image of the telegraph when referring to Morse code in the video.
2) In the second part of your comment, while raising some good points, I have to respectfully disagree. Morse code and binary code do differ in purpose, and here they are:
- A variable-length, human-interpretable telegraph communication code is what Morse code is. Letters are represented by sequences of dots and dashes.
The binary code is a fixed-length, machine-processed language of computers; it represents all types of data in a digital format using ones and zeros, not just text. Besides that, internet communication relies on complex protocols, for instance, TCP/IP, HTTP, and SSL/TLS, which control how data is transmitted, its error checking, and its security. Morse code does not embody such protocols nor embedded error-checking mechanisms.
Binary data are sent using some modulation technique-amplitude, frequency, or phase modulation-to encode bits over the media. Morse Code has limited representation to alphanumeric characters, without supporting functionalities as extended in modern digital communication.
Whereas the telegraph and Morse code were ground-breaking technologies which had revolutionized communication in their day, the internet grew from the computer science and networking developments of the mid-20th century, and principally from the ARPANET innovation.
Such an equation seriously over-simplifies the advance of technologies; it also sidesteps the complexity of today's digital communication systems, which far outreaches the level of simplicity in Morse code and the telegraph. Therefore, it would be incorrect to refer to ones and zeroes of the Internet of today as today's Morse code.
When you stop and think of just how difficult it is to pull in a 3 pound fish, you have your answer.
Thanks for your comment @MrJacknutz. That is a great way of putting it!
This is just another AI generated video. Not a research.
Thanks for your comment @mubasherahmed3681. Interesting you say that, when the video is based on a scientific research paper. Now, I'm curious, what makes you think its Ai generated?
First off, the logic in your initial argument is flawed. Telegraphs don't equal propellers.
Second, the tech is all well and good, but how does the submarine stop? Especially, how does it stop in an emergency situation?
Hi rorkgoose614, thanks for commenting! Well, looking at the first part of your comment, I think this is partly due to a misunderstanding. The idea that I tried to get through, is that sometimes just mere iteration and perfection of available technology may not always result in a breakthrough. Many times, innovation comes from a completely new approach. I agree with you that telegraphs do not equal propellers. It was more of an example where innovation has come from embracing a new approach. For example, the internet is our current system of communication, which did not evolve through an improvement of the telegraph but rather through innovations in computer science.
Then moving on to the second part, which I think is exciting! You do bring up a good point about emergency stopping in submarines; something that I hadn't thought of. Currently, when the submarine experiences an emergency, propellers are reversed. However, due to inertia, the submarine cannot stop immediately. Now, to answer your question, I would propose adding emergency flaps to the submarine, like how airplanes use the flaps as air brakes. However, given that water is 800 times more viscous than air, meaning that water resists deformation and flow more than air does; the resistance due to flaps would develop significant drag, making the submarine decelerate faster compared to when an airplane employs flaps. I have to say, I loved this question, because it made me think. Thanks!
What did you guys think of the meme?
"Propellers are Finished... Fish Propulsion is HERE!" That seems reasonable: it would, after all, certainly reduce, or even eliminate, cavitation.
Thanks @ctaylor1460. Very interesting comment. I would think that the less cavitation you have in a propulsion system, the higher the efficiency. What do you think?
@@BioBytee Yes, of course. A blade propeller can spin only so fast before cavitation results; after that efficiency drops off rapidly with an increasing angular frequency vector. As a result, a propeller with a slower rotation, but with a greater blade surface area will (all things being equal) result in greater efficiency, which translates into greater speed.
@ctaylor1460 I have to say I'm finding this discussion very interesting. I wonder if your expertise are in marine engineering. Going back to our discussion, I agree with you that increasing blade surface area, with slower rotation, will inherently result in increased efficiency. However, I would argue that introducing a larger blade surface area, could increase turbulence, decreasing the vessels performance due to a larger wake formed behind the propeller. I would also argue that increased turbulence could compromise stealth, making the submarine detectable. Also large propellers have a more mass and inertia reducing the manoeuvrability. Would be great to know your thoughts on these points.
I asked our goldfish in our ponds if they thought it was a good idea and they have refused to give up their tails.
I didn't take that into account 🤣
More silent submarines. Something nobody asked for.
Thanks for commenting @randomnumbers84269. I think the military would definitely be interested in this technology, especially if it could help prevent their submarines from being detected by the enemy...
I talk with my turtle every day. 😊
Hahah thanks @jamesmcfarlin8739. You will have to show me one day, how to talk to turtles!
everything seems okay until it comes to practicality, think of a fish pullling a small boat , how big the fish should be . imagine a fish to pull a submarine , thats the amount of energy we need from the mechanism . so to move a submarine using this is feasible , but we need a fish tail which is very larger than a submarine to get it moved , lol .
True. Submarines and heavy vessels are impractical without significant advances in materials science and control mechanisms.
For now, smaller crafts and robotics. But if it really works wonders. I’m sure they’ll scale, especially if it saves power.
Thanks, @srinivaskalyan9672. That's a good point you're making. Whale sharks, which are the largest fish species in the world, use sub-carangiform swimming. A fully grown adult whale shark, which is around 20 meters (approximately 66 feet) in length, might have a tail size of 3 to 4 meters (10 to 13 feet).
Now, a U.S. military submarine can be 110 meters (360 feet) in length. This means it's about five times longer than a whale shark's tail. Therefore, to move a submarine, you would theoretically need a tail of 20 meters (66 feet), which accounts for around 20% of the submarine's body length-similar to the proportion of the tail to body length in a whale shark.
In terms of energy, the requirement is relatively low because submarines don't have to move very fast.
I get it sir but if the point is onyl reducing the noise then this would work . But it’s about driving the submarine . Also we increase the length of the submarine to 20 to 25% based on your stats in the previous comment making it more vulnerable to torpidos and other stuff . May be if someone doesn’t care about the size then it’s fine . Also then 20 to 25% increase in length would increase material cost . Also there is a continuous stress on the links increasing the fatigue so the link should be made from expensive materials . So resources are being wasted . Even if it is wasted what was it all for reduce sound ? 😂