You can’t reason with a troll.
The old water-powered grist mills were around 5- 10 kw. For a ship of 10,000 kw that’s about 0.05% - 0.1%. I’d guess in practice it’d be lower than that, maybe by a factor or 10 or 100 or more.
A better way to capture wave energy would be to install a water turbine in the pipe connecting flume (anti-roll) tanks or similar.
I doubt if either method is worthwhile. Resources spend on making existing plants more efficient instead are much more likely to yield gains at the margin.
Why are you being so negative? George has gifted us the basic scientific framework to advance ship propulsion to dizzying levels. Unfortunately, after providing several recaps lifted from a few paragraphs in a ‘Physics for Dummies’ book , he seems to have left the building.
It’s up to us to carry on his legacy and carry the ball forward on his behalf so let’s consider the modifications necessary to turn his dream into reality. In addition scoops welded to the exterior of the hull to capture water, holding tanks will have to be mounted as high as possible above the structure of the ship. The water will find its way up there because of wave pressure. The elevation is necessary so gravity can “pressurise” the water prior to releasing it an explosive burst of kinetic energy at “sea level”.
A tall sturdy framework will have to be erected above the upper decks to support the tons of water captured in those tanks and several inches of steel will need to be added to the hull’s thickness to prevent it from buckling under all combined weight. I haven’t seen mention of the possible effects of tons of extra weight and drag inducing structures added to the ship yet so it’s safe to assume they can be ignored.
I suggest that the prototype be contracted to a Chinese firm since the US has frittered away its ability to keep up with modern shipbuilding and abandoned the will to hold its own on the international stage of innovation.
I leave the pesky calculations of formulas to bring this project to fruition to the more mathematically inclined and look forward with great anticipation to seeing the first ULCC silently zooming by as if by magic thanks to George.
Sorry I think in terms of SI units as that is how they taught us at university.
The channel would be located along the length of the ship and it and the openings would cover a large area. If it extended below the waterline it would increase drag.
I agree hull design is extensively studied but capturing and using wave seems to have been ignored. As I stated I am not proposing any changes to the smooth flow of water below sea level. But there is no smooth flow above sea level as water gets pushed to the side.
If you crash a car into a wall it will create pressure on the wall. This will cause the wall to move or create stresses in it.
The pressure in the channel will equal the impact pressure. If the pressure outside is greater water will enter to equalise it. If pressure is greater in the channel than outside the one way openings stop the flow back.
Can we just agree on a basic principle that water pushed behind a ship provides thrust whereas water pushed to the sides of ships does not?
I am aiming to reduce fuel consumption and not eliminate it. To stop fuel consumption would require lots of energy storage.
The channels are above sea level and so the water has potential energy. Water with potential energy exerts pressure at the bottom. So the term pressurised water and potential energy refer to the same thing.