The Wave-Powered Paradigm: A Zero-Fuel Autonomous Cargo Vessel (Open Source)

Engineering Marine Engineering
21

Thank you for engaging with the material and for the detailed critique. I will clarify a few points where the intent of the concept may not have come across clearly.

Regarding the schematic sketch, it is not meant to be a hull layout, flow diagram, or hydrodynamic representation. It is a minimal principle illustration only, showing that wave-induced motion is allowed to pass through the hull, that energy conversion occurs internally via side-mounted converters, and that the main cargo mass is positioned below and structurally integrated with the vessel. It is not intended to depict vessel scale, sea state, wave height, or surface current behavior. Any visual impression of breaking waves or exaggerated proportions should not be read as a physical claim.

The DOI already addresses WSA concerns directly (“Addressing Wetted Surface Area”): "Critiques… often point to increased WSA as disqualifying. In AWEV, internal ducts are active converters like sails. IAKKS keeps C_f low; at 9–10 knots (V^2 scaling), tacking harvest exceeds friction for positive net

It is also important to clarify that the energy source addressed is not surface drift or current alone, but wave orbital motion throughout the water column. The concept is explicitly based on intercepting orbital velocities associated with wave propagation, not on extracting energy from surface flow or from the vessel’s own forward motion.

Related to this, the concept does not assume point-to-point transit from A to B. A central part of the operating logic, described repeatedly in the DOI report,

is that the vessel actively adjusts heading and route in order to maximize exposure to favorable wave directions and orbital motion, in much the same way that a sailing vessel tacks rather than following the shortest geometric path.

This is why the frequently invoked Tesla regenerative-braking analogy does not apply. Regenerative braking attempts to recover energy from a vehicle’s own kinetic energy, which is fundamentally a loss-recovery process. In contrast, this concept is explicitly designed to intercept externally supplied wave energy by selecting headings and routes that maximize orbital velocity input. Propulsion is therefore coupled to routing strategy and environmental energy fields, not treated as a passive by-product of forward motion.

Regarding energy storage and displacement, ,the system is not intended to provide primary propulsion from batteries. Battery capacity is dimensioned as a buffer for maneuvering and port operations, while continuous thrust is derived directly and continuously from the intercepted wave energy field.

On the points of logistics, cost, and draft, , AWEV is conceived as a solution for cargo types where energy cost is the dominant factor and lead time is secondary, such as bulk commodities or raw materials. While the initial CAPEX for specialized materials and hull complexity is higher, the financial case rests on the total life-cycle cost (LCC). The elimination of fuel costs and carbon taxes, combined with the integration of IAKKS, is intended to significantly reduce OPEX. If biofouling is minimized as hypothesized, it leads to fewer docking cycles and drastically lower maintenance requirements, allowing the higher production costs to be amortized over a more efficient operational cycle.

Furthermore, the mention of “hubs” in the report refers specifically to offshore transshipment hubs. This model explores how vessels optimized for energy harvesting can operate within autonomous logistics chains, utilizing deep-water hubs to bypass traditional port draft restrictions and maximize time spent in high-energy wave fields

If there are specific assumptions in the orbital energy model or routing logic that you believe are physically inconsistent, I would be glad to discuss those quantitatively in more detail.

The report contains more detailed discussion of the energetic assumptions, first-order power estimates, and operating principles than can reasonably be reproduced in a forum post. Those sections are intended to define feasibility bounds and to motivate CFD, tank testing, and further modeling, not to claim a finalized or optimized design.In short, the work should be read as a pre-design research framework that makes a specific physical hypothesis about wave-energy interception and routing logic, while leaving geometry, scaling, logistics, and cost optimization to later stages if the hypothesis proves viable.

Your points sharpen the discussion considerably, thank you for helping clarify where the concept needs more explicit framing.

22

Reads like AI slop

Responds like AI slop

Looks like AI slop

Stinks like AI slop

Verbose like AI slop

Wastes energy and time like AI slop

24

Low-effort labels don’t change the physics of the hypothesis. If you have a technical objection to the energy flux calculations or the V^2 scaling mentioned in the report, let’s hear it.

I’m interested in discussing the propulsion-to-drag ratio and the orbital motion interception. If you aren’t able to engage with the engineering, then the stylistic commentary is just a distraction from the actual topic.

Do you have a quantitative critique of the model, or are you just here to review the prose?

25

You might find more “engagement” on a forum for the proponents of “free energy” or perpetual motion machines.

26

It is telling that you equate harvesting environmental energy with perpetual motion; by that logic, you must also consider a sailing vessel tacking against the wind to be a “free energy” machine.

27

Update: S.K.O.O.G. – Formalized System Architecture for Zero-Emission Maritime Propulsion

​Following our previous exchange, I am providing an update on the development of the S.K.O.O.G. (Skoog Kinetic Orbital Oscillating Generator) framework. The system has now been formalized as a foundational technical architecture, with Skoog Open Marine Technology (SOMT) serving as the open-innovation initiative for its practical applications.

​Development Status:

The architecture has moved from initial concept into a structured pre-design phase. Refinements have focused on the internal integration of the LFAS (Lift-optimized Archimedes Screw) and the operational logic of the double-ended, wave-permeable hull.

​Core Technical Pillars:​Net Energy Surplus:

The S.K.O.O.G. architecture is engineered to establish a net positive energy balance by actively intercepting orbital motion. The vessel utilizes AI-assisted routing to prioritize energy-rich paths, maximizing energy flux capture.

LFAS Technology:

Energy conversion is driven by LFAS, specifically designed to generate positive torque from the bidirectional oscillatory flow inherent in wave orbital motion.

Friction Management:

The framework integrates the IAKKS active ceramic coating system to maintain a low C_f, ensuring that energy harvesting exceeds skin-friction drag within the defined 9–12 knot operating envelope.

​The formal description of the S.K.O.O.G. framework and the SOMT initiative is available via the updated DOI:

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17552757

​As the project moves toward the next phase of high-fidelity modeling and CFD analysis, we remain committed to an open-science approach (CC BY 4.0). I welcome technical engagement from those interested in the physics of wave-orbital interception.

28

image
image299×168 64.8 KB

1 Like
29

Marine engineering is technical by nature.

If specific terms like “orbital particle motion” or “torque generation” are confusing, I’m happy to clarify them.

However, if you have a quantitative objection to the physics or the energy flux calculations in the DOI, I’d prefer to discuss those rather than memes.

30

You still have what appears to be a massive drag and momentum/mass-transfer/resistance problem. A vessel moving through a fluid with large athwarships hull openings will necessarily:

A) massively increase drag and turbulent hull flow (resistance). This why you see some ships with tunnel thruster doors or shutters, as a smooth hull form greatly reduces energy consumption. Putting a series of large holes in the side of the hull specifically to allow wave/current flow through tangential to vessel propulsion direction seems theoretically impossible to overcome the increase in energy required to do so. Can you show/account for the difference in resistance between your conceptual vessel and a smooth hull-form without tunnels/chambers?

B) assumes a volume of water is now changing direction and physical location (resistance). For a mass of water external to a vessel to act upon a screw internal to (and moving with) the vessel, it must therefore separate from the greater body of water for a period of time. The vessel has moved in its direction of travel a certain distance from the time the wave enters the Archimedes Screw chamber “converters” on one side of the hull to the time it exits the other side. You have to account for the energy required to both change momentum of and move this mass of water. Orbital wave or not, you are physically re-locating water molecules. Where are you accounting for this net energy consumer?

Doubtful. Sails operate in air, hulls operate in water, the drag penalties are not the same. Relying on a yet to be created or proven friction reduction technology to validate the overall concept is a red flag. Any analysis of the propulsion system/power generation/hull-form concept must be independent of other undeveloped concepts. Otherwise we could imagine myriad non-existent solutions to our problems, but it would make them no more viable. What does the model say when friction based on today’s standard commercially available hull coatings?

Battery capacity is dimensioned as a buffer for maneuvering and port operations, while continuous thrust is derived directly and continuously from the intercepted wave energy field.

It’s not that simple from an electrical engineering standpoint. It is not realistic that you will have continuous synchronous rotational velocity of all of the turbine screws, either individually over time nor between each other. An alternator connected to an internal combustion engine produces a steady usable voltage because it runs at a steady speed. An alternator connected as a PTO to a variable speed propeller shaft produces a steady usable voltage after passing through an electronic filter like an asynchronous generator or similar. If you want “continuous thrust” you are going to need a rather novel and complex converter drive system, suitable and type-approved for use on a classed marine vessel. What system does your concept use for this?

Furthermore, to say that these batteries are just a “buffer for maneuvering and port operations” demonstrates a failure to consider or research the power required for maneuvering and port operations. This can be a huge consumer. And you are suggesting that not only are you producing sufficient power for continuous propulsion at sea but have such an excess that you can charge batteries for prolonged port operations and maneuvering? How much energy have you allotted to this?

You are going to amortize higher CAPEX through reduced OPEX and docking cycles? This shows a manifest lack of understanding on what is accomplished or required of dry-docking from a regulatory standpoint, before you even consider adding more hull penetrations and fixtures than you’ll find on a modern MODU. Hint: it’s not just to clean the barnacles off. (Assuming you can even fit this new hull design in an available existing dry-dock.)

There are many reasons why a conceptual sketch with elements of engineering realism is important, not the least of which is to give direction towards what you would actually test in a test-tank environment, whether real or virtual. If you can’t envision how this system could actually be integrated into a floating body that obeys the principles of naval architecture, vessel stability, and regulatory environment then there is no reason to validate anything else.

These are not all secondary details, they dominate feasibility, viability, and plausibility, without which no amount of physics or energy flux calculations will overcome.

1 Like
31

Thank you for the detailed and technically serious critique. All of the points you raise are addressed in the DOI documentation, but to avoid any ambiguity I will explicitly map each concern to the relevant sections of the published work.

1. Hull openings, drag, and turbulent resistance

The internal channels in AWEV are not passive hull openings comparable to bow-thruster tunnels. As stated in the DOI system description:

“Waves pass through internal hull channels and drive lift-optimized Archimedes screws, converting bidirectional orbital flow into smooth, unidirectional thrust.”

These channels function as energy collectors, intercepting kinetic energy from the ambient wave-orbital field before it would otherwise dissipate. They are therefore active energy-intercepting control volumes, not parasitic features or braking elements.

Consequently, isolated smooth-hull resistance comparisons are not the governing metric. The relevant criterion is the net energy balance between externally intercepted wave/orbital energy and internal hydrodynamic losses, as defined in the DOI.

This system-level logic is further explained under the Hydrodynamic Keel Principle, where the submerged ballast-stabilized cargo module provides lateral resistance that:

“forces the wave energy to discharge through the turbine channels rather than translating the hull sideways.”

2. Momentum transfer and “relocation” of water mass

The concept does not rely on bulk relocation of water mass through the vessel. This point is explicitly addressed in the Hydrodynamic Flow Basis section:

“Rectified orbital contribution represents an effective velocity component derived from oscillatory motion, not a unidirectional free-stream current.”

“Orbital particle motion involves oscillatory trajectories with negligible net mass transport.”

Energy extraction occurs from the oscillatory orbital field, not from transporting water molecules from one spatial location to another. The accounting of momentum change and energy extraction is therefore fully consistent with conservation principles and does not introduce an unaccounted net energy sink.

3. Electrical conversion, variable speed, and continuous thrust

(including PHST)

Electrical variability and synchronization are explicitly acknowledged in the DOI. These aspects are addressed through PHST (Passive Hydrostatic Stabilization Technology), described as:

“a maintenance-free hydraulic system that passively maintains precise rotor alignment for maximum generator efficiency and long lifetime.”

PHST directly concerns electromechanical coupling, generator alignment, and operational robustness under variable rotational conditions. As stated under Research-Phase Status, the DOI presents:

“engineering-level estimates appropriate for a research-phase concept.”

Detailed class-ready generator topology, certification, and final power-electronics architecture are therefore intentionally outside scope at this stage, while the core electromechanical stabilization challenge is explicitly addressed.

4. Batteries, maneuvering, and port operations

The DOI does not claim unlimited or trivial energy availability for harbor operations. It states explicitly that battery capacity is dimensioned as a buffer for control systems, start-up, maneuvering, and port operations, not as a primary propulsion energy source.

Interpreting continuous wave-derived propulsion as implying unlimited surplus energy is therefore incorrect and not supported by the published text.

5. Hull coating, friction, and IAKKS

Skin-friction reduction is explicitly addressed through IAKKS, described in the DOI as:

“an active ceramic composite coating system… with near-zero fouling under controlled electro-active operation.”

IAKKS is presented as a documented supporting technology addressing a dominant resistance component at low speeds, not as a prerequisite for feasibility. The power estimates in the DOI remain conservative and are not dependent on unrealistically optimistic coating performance.

6. Docking, regulatory requirements, and conceptual illustration

The DOI explicitly states that the schematic illustration is not a hydrodynamic layout:

“The accompanying file is an intentional artistic rendering… producing detailed design specifications at this early research stage would be methodologically premature.”

Regulatory compliance, dry-docking constraints, and finalized hull integration are therefore downstream design tasks, contingent on prior validation of the physical energy-conversion premises.

Summary

The S.K.O.O.G./AWEV documentation does not claim a class-ready vessel design. It presents a physics-grounded, system-level architecture with explicit assumptions, conservative power estimates, and clearly defined research-phase boundaries.

I welcome continued technical discussion within that defined scope.

32

No, it does not, and that is the problem. The physics is not grounded, every question is answered with an assumption, the power estimates are not accounting for actual power requirements because none have been considered, and you are defining your research boundaries to exclude all real-world constraints.

At this point, I don’t think the discussion is progressing because the fundamental objections are being reframed rather than addressed. In naval architecture, smooth-hull resistance is the baseline by definition, not by convention or opinion. Any claim that a hull with large openings, internal ducts, or flow-through chambers produces net benefit must first demonstrate performance relative to a smooth reference hull. Calling those features “active energy collectors” does not exempt them from resistance accounting.

On wave orbital motion, no one is claiming that waves lack energy or that wave-energy devices are impossible. The objection is simpler and more basic: orbital motion exists in the wave form, which you are modifying by virtue of introducing the collector. Once you extract work from oscillatory motion, momentum is transferred and reaction forces appear on the structure doing the extracting. “Zero-mean particle displacement” does not eliminate added mass, radiation damping, or the energetic cost of forcing phase and velocity differences. Those terms must be explicitly closed in the energy and momentum balance, and they currently are not.

Your repeated reference to “unlimited energy” is a deflection, as I never accused you of claiming that. The concern is that maneuvering, station-keeping, hotel loads, and port operations are major power consumers, and any system claiming continuous propulsion plus surplus energy must show that these loads have been realistically quantified. Without that, statements about batteries being “just a buffer” are meaningless.

Lastly, these are not downstream design refinements to be addressed later. They are upstream feasibility constraints and first-order problems. Resistance balance, momentum balance, power conditioning, and regulatory realities define whether a concept can exist at all. If those cannot be closed at the physics and systems level, no amount of later CFD, materials development, or architectural refinement will make the concept viable. That’s why the discussion keeps returning to these points—they’re gating items, not details. That’s how engineering review works.

Until those balances and realities are considered and demonstrated, the concept remains subject to real criticism regardless of how many times the DOI is cited. Repeated rhetorical reframing does not replace quantitative obligations and controlling real-world constraints.

When you have an answer that doesn’t just copy and paste the same text over and over again instead of a considered and thoughtful engineering response then perhaps there can be more discussion.

1 Like
33

Thank you, shipengr, for the rigorous engineering critique. You have correctly identified the “gating items” that represent the ultimate test for this architecture.

To clarify my perspective: Judging the Skoog AWEV by traditional smooth-hull standards is like judging a car with a massive, oversized industrial wind turbine sitting on its roof based solely on the aerodynamic form of the car’s body.

In a traditional design, the car’s form defines its efficiency. But you cannot define the performance of this system by the 'shape of the car

In a traditional design, drag is the enemy. But in this architecture, the vessel is fundamentally a mobile, zero-emission wave-energy harvesting platform. The internal ducts are Collectors. Just as you wouldn’t define a wind turbine’s efficiency solely by its aerodynamic drag, you cannot use “smooth hull resistance” as the sole baseline for this system’s viability.

The core thesis of the Skoog Architecture is that the energy harvested from the orbital flux will yield a positive net surplus after accounting for the total drag of the collectors and the submerged module.

I recognize that as an inventor, my role is to define this logic, and I have now reached the natural limit of system-level modeling. The next step is institutional, empirical validation.

This is exactly why I have engaged with MARIN (Netherlands). They have reviewed the framework and expressed a very positive interest in conducting basin tests, welcoming the opportunity to empirically verify this “Massive Harvest vs. Drag” balance. They see the value in determining this net outcome, and I am now seeking the financial partners to facilitate this validation phase at their facilities

34

I’m interested to see a physical demonstration of these principles in action! It’s hard to visualize from the descriptions alone.

35

Thank you, DirtSailor. I completely agree with you, seeing a paradigm shift in action is far more powerful than reading about it.

The complexity of how the orbital flux interact with the internal Skoog LFAS (the collector) is something that really demands a physical demonstration to be fully appreciated. Because this architecture treats the vessel as a portable wave-power plant rather than a traditional ship, the visual results will look very different from what we are used to in naval architecture.

By using AI-driven route optimization, the vessel effectively “hunts” for the highest energy density. It seeks out the “sweet spots” n the orbital wave flux and dynamically positions itself to maximize harvest. While a stationary plant produces zero in a calm sea, this mobile architecture navigates to where the energy is.

In the context of bulk transport, as detailed in my DOI, time is not the primary constraint—fuel cost and autonomy are. For a cargo of iron ore or grain, arriving a week later is irrelevant if the transit was achieved with zero fuel cost and zero emissions. We are not balancing speed against efficiency; we are prioritizing total energy autonomy. This mobility turns the vessel into a superior power plant that happens to carry cargo

I have reached the “prototype threshold.” As an inventor, I have defined the logic and the geometric framework, but the physical demonstration you are asking for is exactly what the next phase is all about.

This is why my dialogue with MARIN (Netherlands) is so critical.

They are ready to provide that physical demonstration in their testing basin. They want to see the “Massive Harvest vs. Drag” balance in action just as much as you/we do.

Once the funding is secured to facilitate these tests, we will finally have the empirical data and the video footage to make this technology as easy to visualize as any other power plant.

I am currently seeking the partners who want to help bring that physical demonstration to life.

36

honestly, this does sound like something I’d read in science fiction or any future setting where energy use is net zero. advances are made all the time toward this. I do have a basic understanding of energy transfer, the industry standard 10% loss in conversion and such but without looking at the ‘enclosed’ info I fail to see how this vessel would do much more than maintain steerage, and having that much below the waterline….. wow!, but being a older bigoted, salt incrusted sailor I bring up the argument of ‘‘unmanned ships’’ and such, I’ve also been out there enough to believe a heavy draft like that might be submerged for a week or so at a time, ……and i mean ‘submarine’! ……. anyway, I do belive this can come to pass, especially with sattelite info and current mapping but it’ll be a specific market or routes.

37

Hi Jim,

I truly appreciate the perspective of an “old salt”, it’s exactly the kind of reality check a project like this needs.

You hit the nail on the head regarding the draft and the resistance. That’s actually why I’ve recently updated the system classification to a “Mobile Wave-Energy Harvester”.

In a traditional sense, you’re right; the resistance would be a nightmare for a standard ship. But in this architecture, that “drag” is the engine. We aren’t trying to fight the wave; we’re harvesting it. Think of it more as a floating power plant that uses the resistance to generate the very power it needs to move and maintain steerage.

Regarding the “submarine” comment, you’re spot on.

In heavy weather, the S.K.O.O.G. AWEV (Autonomous Wave Energy Vessel) is designed to handle being awash. Since it’s unmanned, we don’t have to worry about the comfort or safety of a crew on deck. It can take the beating that a manned vessel shouldn’t.

It’s definitely for specific routes and markets, as you say, where the mission is maximum energy efficiency rather than recordbreaking speed.

Thanks for the “salt incrusted” feedback, it keeps the engineering honest!

Best regards,

Göran Skoog

38

Just a quick follow-up on the structural side, Jim, it relates back to your “submarine” point.

The design actually follows a high-rigidity space-frame philosophy, much like the chassis of a Porsche. The turbine ducts are not just hollow openings, they function as massive transverse beams that are integrated into the hull’s skeleton.

This creates an incredibly stable and torsionally rigid structure. So, while she is designed to be “awash” in heavy seas, letting the energy pass over instead of fighting it, the hull acts more like a reinforced rigid cage than a traditional hollow ship. It is built specifically to handle the external pressures of those conditions.

Appreciate the technical feedback, it is a valuable perspective for the upcoming verification steps!

39

logically, since ocean waves travel one has to assume the concept as viable from a mathematical perspective, practical viability of course is a ‘study’!

40

Exactly, Jim. Moving from a “viable concept” to “practical viability” is precisely the goal of the next phase. The intended testing at MARIN is designed to bridge that gap between mathematical logic and the physical reality of the ocean. Appreciate the professional dialogue, it keeps the focus exactly where it should be!