Mailing List Archive

Mailing List: techdiver

Banner Advert

Message Display

To: techdiver@opal.com
Subject: Re: movement through water
From: "James Mitchell" <MITCHELL@od*.ee*.wi*.ac*.za*>
Organization: WITS Electrical Engineering
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 1995 18:42:54 SAT
> 
> > I saw an item about the artificial fish tail compared with a propeller, on a
> > UK TV program called `Tomorrow's World'. It seems that the fishtail sends
more
> > water backwards and less sideways than the standard propeller. But it seems
to
> > me that what you gain in efficiency this way you lose in payload and motor
> > space by the space occupied by the tail-waving mechanism. I suspect that
most
> > research will have to be towards more efficient screws and waterjets etc.
> 
> I would think that an artificial tail would be less efficient than a
propeller.
> Remember, $billions$ has been spent on fluid flow research, and the mechanics
> of propulsion.  Why aren't airplanes propelled by tails?  A fluid, only
thinner.
> Incidently, I'm not sure that the wash of tails would be narrower than the
> propwash of a well-designed propeller.
> 

If I remember correctly, the article in New Scientist (that started 
this thread) was basically considering this question. The author 
noted that all propulsion relies on the movement of mass in the 
opposite direction. Basically you can either move a large mass 
slowly or a small mass quickly and you will get the same theoretical 
propulsion. It appears that moving a large mass slowly is far more 
efficient but only at slow (relatively) speed of forward motion. I 
would guess that a tail falls in this category. The fish moves a 
relatively large mass (compared to the mass of the fish) but the top 
swimming speed is limited (even if it doesn't like like it from a 
divers perspective). On the other hand, a boat propeller moves a 
relatively small mass and a comparatively high speed --less efficient 
but allowing higher top speeds. My gut feeling is that no fish could 
keep up with a Formula 1 boat :). Airplanes require a high 
airflow over their wings and thus have small fast props. Helicopters 
a case of moving large bodies of air at fairly high speed and they 
aren't exactly cheap on fuel (compare to a plane of similar mass).

Somehow I think the article may be just a little clearer......
(lots of diagrams:)

Cheers

Navigate by Author: [Previous] [Next] [Author Search Index]
Navigate by Subject: [Previous] [Next] [Subject Search Index]

[Send Reply] [Send Message with New Topic]

[Search Selection] [Mailing List Home] [Home]