Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Technology

Electromagnetic Ship Docking System Debuts 164

Posted by chrisd from the can't-dock-with-canoes-though dept.
Makarand writes "A system that uses electromagnets for docking ships is getting ready to be tested at a port in the Netherlands according to this article in the New Scientist. Magnetic docking systems were never used in the past as magnetic fields posed dangers to sensitive cargo like TVs and monitors. Researchers at the Delft University of Technology have developed electromagnets whose magnetic fields do not penetrate far into the ship for this special application. The magnets can be periodically switched off and on rapidly to allow ships to rise and fall with the tide."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Electromagnetic Ship Docking System Debuts More

Electromagnetic Ship Docking System Debuts

Comments Filter:

  • I don't get it (Score:1, Insightful)

    by ajuda ( 124386 )
    I mean, wouldn't it be cheaper (and easier) to use a chain and combo lock? They could have all the locks use the same combination (like 1-2-3). It might take a bit longer to unload each container, but things would hardly ever break, and the technology would be very cheap.
    • "It might take a bit longer to unload each container, but things would hardly ever break, and the technology would be very cheap."

      I don't think this technology would be interesting to people if it wasn't worth the costs involved. Have you ever watched a ship dock? It's long laborous, and involves lots of people. There's lots of room for accidents to happen. If they could just pull up, flip a switch, and be attached to the dock, it'd definitely be worthwhile.

      So so far I see safety, speed, simpler docking proceedures. Good?

      Don't get me wrong though, you do have a point, it'll take a while for it to be adopted. But it isn't hard to imagine that the ability to use EM locks without harming cargo is very interesting.

    • Re:I don't get it (Score:3, Informative)

      by VoidEngineer ( 633446 )
      Mostly, the chain and combo lock doesn't address the issues which electromagnetic mooring systems do. There are a lot of factors involved with a project like this, including sway, roll, and yaw of the boat, which chains and locks don't handle. The chain and lock system acts like a yo-yo or a swing, in so far as two objects are attached together by a string. The electromagnetic mooring system acts like, well, a refridgerator magnet does to a refridgerator.

  • BAD PUN ALERT (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 18, 2003 @06:24PM (#5110075)
    Electromagnetic ship docking systems are very attractive.

  • hm.... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by bafu ( 580052 )
    I wonder if the points where they plan to mount all of the electromagnets are going to up to the job... it doesn't seem like they would have been designed for stress in that direction.

    • Re:hm.... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by MBCook ( 132727 )
      I'd imagine that as long as you attached to where there is a bulkhead on the other side of the hull, you'd be fine. They may not have been designed for force in that direction, but I doubt that there would really be enough force to worry about.

  • If this works... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by girl_geek_antinomy ( 626942 ) on Saturday January 18, 2003 @06:25PM (#5110081)
    If they can make this work, then it sounds great - I'd be concerned about the risk to the ship's own electronics, though, as much as to its' cargo. Computerised navigation systems, and the like, and ship-wide systems whose wiring well run very near, or even along the inside of the hull... Neat idea, and one that may well send the internationnal rope-manufacturing industry into decline - after all, who else needs four inch diameter hemp ropes in this day and age...?

    • Re:If this works... (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      after all, who else needs four inch diameter hemp ropes in this day and age...?

      Errm... Don't know about that, but in Holland they have better uses for hemp...
      • I doubt it. The people of Holland are probably smart enough to know that you would likely die from smoke inhalation before you smoked enough hemp to get you high. (Hemp is the male plant, FYI. Smokable herb comes from the female.)

    • Re:If this works... (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      after all, who else needs four inch diameter hemp ropes in this day and age...?

      Japanese Sumo porn stars?
    • Hmmm, don't need to worry too much about that.

      I'm fairly sure that the force of the magnet decays exponentially with distance, so the magnet's field shouldn't extend too far into the ship. Also, fiber optics shouldn't be affected by the EM interference, so as long as the ship-wide wiring is run over fiber optics, things should be OK. (Fiber optic enabled routers on bridge, engine, and network closets; many manufacturing and production plants which have to deal with EM interference use fiber optics, so I'd suspect that cargo ships might use similar solutions to similar problems.)

      As far as who needs 4" hemp ropes... uh, Woody Harrelson for a retrofit of the Cheer's pub?

      Scene from Cheers 2:

      Woody: Arr! I'm a pirate!
      Norm: Hey! Give me some of the stuff he's havin!
      Fraiser: Oh, what an excellent opportunity to study the affects of canaboids on socio-psychotic behavior!
      Cliff: Shut up and pass the pipe.
      Diane: I don't know if I like the color green... oh, my! That is green!
      Sam: Hey, lock the damn doors! (bubble, bubble, gurgle)

      • Re:If this works... (Score:2, Interesting)

        by brokenwndw ( 471112 )
        In free space, at least, and reasonably far from the source, static magnetic (and electric) fields always decay as 1/r^n for some n. People write the field at a distance r from a magnet in what's called a "multipole expansion":

        B = [messy coefficient] (1/r^3) + [messier coefficient] (1/r^4) + ...

        Unless the coefficient of the first term is zero, then, very far from the source the rest of the terms become negligible and the field drops off as the inverse cube (becoming a "magnetic dipole field"). (For electric fields the leading term is 1/r^2, not 1/r^3. This is because there are electric monopoles but not magnetic monopoles.)

        The trick, then, and what these guys have presumably done, is to make the field really huge close to the magnet (using all those terms in the ... there) but to zero out or minimize the components that reach far away (i.e. the 1/r^3, then the 1/r^4 if you can, etc.)

        (Disclaimer: yeah, yeah, this doesn't take into account matter in the way, and the magnetic field is a vector. But that doesn't change the basic idea.)
    • I'd be leery of potential damage to cargo like shipments of videotapes, hard drives, and anything else sensitive to static or pulsed magnetic fields.

  • where is this being used/could this be used? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by no reason to be here ( 218628 ) on Saturday January 18, 2003 @06:26PM (#5110087) Homepage
    I can imagine this tech being great for mid-air and outer space docking situations? is this kind of technology in place for such applications already?

  • So what does the dockworkers' union think? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MacAndrew ( 463832 ) on Saturday January 18, 2003 @06:28PM (#5110100) Homepage
    Seriously, in the U.S. we just recently had a paralytic dockworkers' strike. I don't think they'd be amused by this labor-saving innovation. Not that I think people should be kicked out of jobs by robots.

    Each of their mooring magnets generates a 1-tesla magnetic field. (from NS article)

    WOW! That's strong. I used to work with a 1.5-T superconductor magnet, an MRI scanner, and it had a heck of a pull. Enough so that people have been injured or killed when a piece of metal got loose. It took three of us to pull off the base of an IV pole (no one inside at the time). Some of the research magnets are 4-T or more. But these are all superconductors, and act like permanent magnets. The resisitive magnets here must produce tons of heat while gobbling electricity. Surely "auto-dock" wouldn't be too hard to design., with mechanical restraints?
    • Seriously, in the U.S. we just recently had a paralytic dockworkers' strike.

      Paralytic? Really? They all went off and got so trashed they couldn't come into work? Kewl! Where do I sign up...?
    • "Seriously, in the U.S. we just recently had a paralytic dockworkers' strike. I don't think they'd be amused by this labor-saving innovation. Not that I think people should be kicked out of jobs by robots"

      They were already striking yesterday! ;-)

      (That was about the EU allowing non-skilled workers to work at the docks though. Heh... "sharing the wealth" somehow doesn't apply when it is their wealth". Of course they are just looking after the membership, but I wish they'd just say that, instead of always giving us that tired line that they do things for the greater good)

    • Re:So what does the dockworkers' union think? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by carlhirsch ( 87880 ) on Saturday January 18, 2003 @06:52PM (#5110221) Homepage
      I expect the ILWU won't give a good god-damn about how the ship is moored as long as they are the ones who run the equipment, handle the cargo coming off the ships, and they're the ones who handle the clerical work. It was actually clerical and back-office jobs that triggered the recent strike. And no, they weren't opposed to technology, they simply wanted to make sure the minds and hands behind the technology had union cards.

      One reason the ILWU had become such a powerful, well-paid union is the fact that when cargo got container-ized rather than loose-packed, they embraced change and took payouts for the workers displaced by the new equipment.

      • "I expect the ILWU won't give a good god-damn..."

        You could be right, but I doubt it. My wife has a relative who used to tie up ships at San Francisco Bay. His salary was higher than mine (I'm a programmer), and his job consisted primarily of being on call. When his beeper went off he would go down to the dock, loop a rope over a capstan and return home. I'll grant that he was pretty much on call 24-hours a day, but he only worked one or two of those hours.

        It doesn't surprise me that the shipping industry would like to eliminate these jobs. But I doubt that a union that has held on to them for so long will give them up without a fight, or without getting something equally lucrative in return.
        • To be entirely fair, there's a good reason why dockworkers get paid more than programmers...when was the last time you heard of a programmer getting killed doing his job. That rope he's looping over a capstan is attached to a very large, very heavy ship that's rocking with the swells and tide, and shifting as loads are added or removed. One wrong move and that rope could easily crush a person, or snap and cut someone in half. It may be a job anyone can do, but it's also one that you've got to risk your life for.

          Well, until now anyway ;-)
          • To be entirely fair, there's a good reason why dockworkers get paid more than programmers...when was the last time you heard of a programmer getting killed doing his job. That rope he's looping over a capstan is attached to a very large, very heavy ship that's rocking with the swells and tide, and shifting as loads are added or removed. One wrong move and that rope could easily crush a person, or snap and cut someone in half. It may be a job anyone can do, but it's also one that you've got to risk your life for.

            Working for a company that has many products made overseas, I can say they are the worst example of a union that I can think of. Well, unless you work for them. During the recent strike the unions were offered the following: Minimum $110k per worker, 100% medical coverage, no jobs lost due to technology. Oh, and they refused it.

            There are people there STILL doing paper manifests, while the rest of the world starting using EDI in the 80's. Nope, Not the major ports in the U.S., they're unionized.

            IMHO, They're a huge wart on the world economy.

    • Re:So what does the dockworkers' union think? (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      > Not that I think people should be kicked out of jobs by robots.

      Except possibly pusher or shover robots.

    • Seriously, in the U.S. we just recently had a paralytic dockworkers' strike. I don't think they'd be amused by this labor-saving innovation. Not that I think people should be kicked out of jobs by robots.

      Back in the 80's, the Japanese started using robots to build cars. Here in the US the Auto Workers Union, afraid the robots would replace American jobs, wouldn't allow the manufacturers to use them. Now the Japanese technology is far ahead of ours and the Japanese have a competitive advantage.

    • Not that I think people should be kicked out of jobs by robots.

      Why not? Automation is a good thing. Do you think that we should still be using switchboard operators and elevator attendants? As the level of automation in the world increases, the total amount of manual labor that mankind must perform decreases. Ideally, we should get to the point where the only work we're doing is maintaining/improving the robots.

      Besides, if these magnetic docking systems put a few longshoremen out of work, so what? Is it really such a terrible thing that they better themselves and learn a new trade?
      • Ideally, we should get to the point where the only work we're doing is maintaining/improving the robots.

        That's a pretty weak ideal future; humans slaving away oiling up their robot master so it can build Nike's 7% faster. :)

        Ideally, we'll get to the point where advancing robotics, nanotechnology, and IA & AI, will result in the technological unemployment of just about everybody on and off Earth. And just when society is getting used to the idea of an economy of unimaginable abundance, the next shockwave will hit.

        --

      • That would be a nice ideal (I've thought about it also), if it weren't for the fact that then you'd have to deal with a huge dumb mass of people not doing anything. These are the people who don't know what to do with themselves on a sunday, except drink themselves silly. We need menial labour just to keep people like that occupied...they can't do anything high level (like programm, tech support, designinging new engines or what have you), so it'd low level work or idleness. And idle hands...

        My guess is that even if they'd have nothing to do and have their food, housing clothing etc taken care of, they'd still be unhappy. People are just that irrational.

        • dumb mass of people not doing anything.

          "What will the slaves do?" was the reason the Roman Emperor gave for not permiting the development of steam engines!

          Something will need to be done to allow for the transition to a society with no need for manual laborers, but stunting the growth of technology isn't it.

    • Re:So what does the dockworkers' union think? (Score:4, Informative)

      by f97tosc ( 578893 ) on Saturday January 18, 2003 @08:38PM (#5110598)
      Not that I think people should be kicked out of jobs by robots.

      Why not? Why put the interests of a few (the small minority of people with 'traditional' industry jobs) before the common good of the many (who will enjoy higher standards of living with increased automization).

      WOW! That's strong. I used to work with a 1.5-T superconductor magnet, an MRI scanner, and it had a heck of a pull. Enough so that people have been injured or killed when a piece of metal got loose

      This is a fair point, but one should keep in mind that what is dangerous is intrinsic to the powers necessary to pull a large ship. A more traditional solution probably involves powerful winches, which of course can pose risks if a cable snaps or somebody gets a hand in the wrong place.

      Tor
    • Robots are a serious threat to our way of life; robots eat old people's medicine for fuel and they have metal arms and hands that are much stronger than our own fleshy hands and arms!

  • 1.5 Tesla Cryomagnets (Score:4, Interesting)

    by VoidEngineer ( 633446 ) on Saturday January 18, 2003 @06:31PM (#5110112)
    So, at work, I work with a 1.5 Tesla magnet (Gyroscan Intera... used for nuclear magnetic resonance imaging; VMS/VAX/Solaris Operating Systems). Price tag on the thing is about $1M, which makes me wonder:

    1) Did this docking system actually cost only $50M? At $5M a year, is a 10 year return on investment reasonable?

    2) Is it actually Helium/Nitrogen cooled? We have to have a dedicated coolant system for our magnet to work at 1.5 Tesla. Moreover, what happens if a magnet breaks? They're not going to vent 2,000L of Helium, per magnet into the ozone, are they? (52 magnets = 100,000L total of liquid Helium)
    • your cryomagnet is cooled because the magnet itself is a superconductor. that way, all you need to do is pump a bunch of electricity into the magnet, cool it, and turn off the electricity and the current runs forever and you have a permanent magnet. the ones in this artilce are switched to allow for the tide (and to allow the ship to undock), so they can't be permanent supercondicint magnets, so they are probably not cooled to liquid helium temperatures. but this does bring up an interesting point, without the supercondicing magnet, these are going require a whole bunch of power to run, don't know if it's giong to be economical in the long run.
    • They're not going to vent 2,000L of Helium, per magnet into the ozone, are they? (52 magnets = 100,000L total of liquid Helium
      Into the Ozone? helium is the most non-reactive element their is. It doesn't do anything to the ozone, and already makes up a small percentage of air. I think some chemists might have finally got it to form a compound a few years back at some enormous temperature/pressure. It may be dangerous in terms of how cold it is, but it's certainly no danger to the environment if released. I'm sure the source of helium in the first place is removing it from the air.
    • They're not going to vent 2,000L of Helium, per magnet into the ozone, are they?

      What does it matter? Other than wasting Helium, their isn't any environmental hazard from venting Helium or Nitrogen. Nitrogen's just air, after all and Helium's almost totally inert.

      About the only danger I can think of is that if 2000L of Liquid Helium (or Nitrogen) is that anything it falls on is going to flash-freeze. Given that it's over water, you could just sell'em as fishsticks, I guess.
      • That and it'll mess round with everyone's voice in the area.

        Imagine the scene with 40 big burly guys hulking ropes around, trying to moor the boat the old way after a critical leak. All the while screaming at each other in those voices, hell this scene alone almost justifies the project.
    • They're not going to vent 2,000L of Helium, per magnet into the ozone, are they?

      Erm, what exactly would be the problem with this?
      • Erm, what exactly would be the problem with this?

        Regarding the ozone, none that I can think of - but helium is expensive (about $5.50/liter), and a non-renewable resource, since it's light enough to dissipate from the atmosphere into space. Also, the only useful source of helium at the moment is natural gas deposits that are unusually rich in the stuff; there's so little of it in the atmosphere, and it's such a pain to liquefy (4.2 Kelvin!), that condensing it out of air is infeasible.

        I assume that they're doing no such thing, though. Non-superconducting NMR magnets are available to at least 2 Tesla, presumably they're using similar designs.
    • Yes, I know that Helium and Nitrogen are mostly inert. As Vellmont points out elsewhere in this thread, Helium is the most inert element there is.

      I agree that there isn't much of a chemical hazard with the Helium or Nitrogen, in regards to chemical reactions. Perhaps my wording was a bit off there, in regards to 'ozone'. I suppose that I'm a bit more concerned with work accidents and thermodynamics, than I am with ozone and atmospheric reactions. Given my training with 1.5Tesla magnets, I can envision accidents happening with human workers getting freeze-burns when a magnet gets hit with a fully loaded cargo ship, and explodes... splashing liquid Helium on everybody. That would be a quick way to ruin your day.

      At work, they make a big deal about not "breaking" the cryomagnet by releasing the Helium. It's got an emergency release valve which vents the Helium in case an accident occurs. I'm told that stuff can cause really bad burns.

      Also, there's a question, in terms of economics, if a magnet breaks. The emergency button on our 1.5 Tesla magnet has, of all things, a warning sign which states 'Refueling of the magnet is very costly.' My thinking is that if I were to ever press that button, and somebody's life wasn't very much in danger, I'd get a meeting with my directors real quick-like, regarding why it's going to cost them $10,000 to refuel the magnet.

      Anyhow, seems to me like there are some practicle issues which need to be sorted out. It's going to probably cost $500,000 in liquid helium costs alone, just to power the thing up.

      Ah well... Seems like a neat project to me.
  • 2. Invent electromagnetic ship docking system 3. Call it a tractor beam! 4. Profit!!!!

  • One Problem (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Arc04 ( 601196 )
    Methods of Securing Ships:

    Lots of Ropes:[Initial Cost: £10,000, Ongoing Cost: £0 (near enough)].
    Electromagnets:[Initial Costs £50,000, Ongoing Cost: £1000s/month]

    I think the problem is obvious here :)

    Arc
    • ...Ropes don't last forever.
    • Actually the article stated that the costs were in _labor_. The "ongoing cost" of mooring a ship with ropes ( the traditional way ) is exactly what they are worried about, and it definitely isn't a cost of 0.

      From the article:
      "..they say the system could save them around 5 million Euro a year in labour costs.."
    • "Methods of Securing Ships:

      Lots of Ropes:[Initial Cost: £10,000, Ongoing Cost: £0 (near enough)].
      Electromagnets:[Initial Costs £50,000, Ongoing Cost: £1000s/month]

      I think the problem is obvious here :)"

      So... what are the costs saved in getting ships docked and undocked faster, much fewer people involved to moor the ship, and the increase in safety that'd likely result from it?

    • Re:One Problem (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I fear that you seriously underestimated the likely cost of the magnetic system. The article states that 52 magnetic modules will be used plus a backup power supply.

      Presuming a likely cost of something in the neighborhood of $5K per module (no reason to think they'll be any cheaper - this is after all, a 1-T magnet) plus another $5K-$10K per module to install (gotta tear up some bulkheads and find a way to attach the modules, tear up a parking lot and run electrical wire) plus another $50K for a backup diesel-powered 50KW generator (that's only one 1KW per module which is probably low), plus you gotta put the mooring out of service for a couple of weeks to do this with a probable lost business value of unknown size.

      Intemize installation costs:
      52 modules X $5K equals $260K plus installation of $260K to $520K plus backup power source $ 50K
      Total: $570K to $830K
      On-going costs:
      50KW power 6cents/KWH $2160/month plus backup power maintenance $ 200/month plus magnet modules inspection/maint.$1000/month
      Total: $3360/month
      First year cost:
      Installation: $570K to $830K
      Maintenance: $ 40K $ 40K
      Total: $610K to $870K

      Now, hawsers are both more expensive and shorter-lived than you suggest, but the ROI this idea is still probably in the 10+ years - and by then you'll probably have to install new magnets and start over. A bad idea altogether.
      • I don't agree...look at most any project, and you'll discover that the mayority of the cost is in personel; people cost a lot of money, above and beyond just the money you pay them (think cafeteria, insurance, etc). Plus I think that you need about 5-10 people to moor a ship (but that I don't know).

        Also, how do you put a cost on human life?

    • Re:One Problem (Score:4, Informative)

      by VoidEngineer ( 633446 ) on Saturday January 18, 2003 @08:07PM (#5110507)
      I dunno. I work with 1.5T magnets, and I think they're talking about much bigger ports and mooring systems than that.
      At the very least, according to the cost of medical grade 1.5 Tesla magnets, your initial costs for the electromagnet system could be off by as much as a factor of 1000. (1 Tesla magnets can cost a cool $1M each, with computer systems, real estate infrastructure upgrades, and all. And they're talking about a 52 magnet system.). My guess:

      Electromagnets: [Inital Costs: $50,000,000; Ongoing Costs: $100,000 per year]
      Lots of Ropes: [Initial Costs: $100,000; Ongoing Labor Costs: $5,000,000 per year (for 200 dock workers)

      Five years down the road, the investment pays off real big.

      But I don't know that for a fact.

  • Dockworkers Response (Score:3, Interesting)

    by limekiller4 ( 451497 ) on Saturday January 18, 2003 @06:35PM (#5110137) Homepage
    From the article [newscientist.com]:
    "Mooring a ship can be a time-consuming, labour-intensive affair in which dock workers grab ropes hurled from the deck of the incoming ship and secure them to the dockside."

    I've never been one decry progress because it'll put some people out of work, but this does have the potential to unemploy a whole crapload of people over the not-so-long term.

    I wonder how the dockworkers union is handling this?
    • Probably like they did on USA's wast coast. They will strike. But this will make it be installed much faster.

      One of the problems with unions have been that they fight against any new labour savings devices. Yet, they would do better to fight for jobs promotion to other positions such as tech work on the mags.
      • WindBourne writes:
        " One of the problems with unions have been that they fight against any new labour savings devices. Yet, they would do better to fight for jobs promotion to other positions such as tech work on the mags."

        I thought of that but, afaik, unions are not structured like this. The Dockworkers Union represents dockworkers, not what dockworkers will eventually become if they go with the (possibly delayable but inevitable) technical advance. So there is no incentive. Their only option is to stall.

        I'm not saying I agree with it. Painters got pissed about cameras because multi-day portraits became a decidedly unattractive option in comparison. Progress marches on with very little notice or concern for who it steps on. I'm not lamenting it so much as wondering, from a societal standpoint, how they're coping. Or maybe even learning from past union mistakes.

  • Power failure? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by tstoneman ( 589372 ) on Saturday January 18, 2003 @06:39PM (#5110168)
    What do you do in the case of an extended power failure? I know they probably have diesel backups, but even those only last so long.

    At least living in the Bay Area with all the uproar about the "Energy Crisis" a couple of years ago, this may not be the most reliable system if you had to rely totally on electricity to dock all those boats up there in Oakland....
    • If this thing works, and they decide to keep using it, I'm willing to bet they will keep ropes around in the event of a power outage. There is always a failsafe.

    • Re:Power failure? (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      The real problem is not in having a ship moored with ropes, but in getting ropes from the ship.

      Once moored, nothing is easier than throwing a line and having your backup.

      Powerfailures in the Netherlands used to be extremely rare. I'm 38. I can remember four powerfailures. There might be one I missed, but no more. They also tend to last short. 30 minutes to 4 hours. They're privatizing the electricity-sector, which used to be state-run, so the rate of powerfailure is going up, but is still no way like America. Let alone California.
    • Assuming that there was an extended failure ther really woudl be bigger issues thanthe dockingsystem, like the cranes and the computer systems and etc etc etc
      • Bigger issues than several thousand tonnes of boat floating away and into god knows what?

        OK, I'm sure they will have ropes, but I think you are downplaying the consequences of a mooring system failing.
  • This sounds like a nice idea, I wonder, can I build an electromagnetic mount for my mountain bike now? or would I have to pay royalties?

    But seriously, how much power is that going to draw? escpecially once they have a whole bank of them? and what's going to happen to the already, electricity strapped california when they start putting in banks of them?

  • Danger!! (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    lets just hope no one on any of the ships has any percings.

    But it would be interesting to see what happened when they power it up.

    1) The guy(or gal) gets all the piercings torn out of their body.

    2) They just fly off the deck of the ship and hit the electromagnet face first.
  • And cause trouble down the road?

  • This technology seems like it has a great chance to increase dock worker safety. Sadly we can be sure that the Long Shoremans Union will violently opose this due to their lost negotiating power.

  • Not as usefull (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mlknowle ( 175506 ) on Saturday January 18, 2003 @07:22PM (#5110348) Homepage Journal
    I've spent several years working as a dockhand for large yachts (100-200 feet). While these boats arn't as big as the tankers and cargo ships which will utilize the magnet system, the manuvering and handleing is similar. Dock lines are not just used to hold the ship once it is in position to the dock - they are also used to manuver the vessle as it is docking (for example, a line will be thrown from the front of the ship, made secure, and the ship will power against it to bring the back of the ship into the dock). Obviously, the magnets wouldn't work at this range (50+ feet)

    Methinks docking lines might be a bit cheaper too - and when properly set, only slight adjustments need to be made for the tide.

    What would be very cool to see is the magnet start attracting someone's belt loop or a leatherman out of someone's pocket standing nearby... wow

  • A solution looking for a problem (Score:5, Interesting)

    by NumberGod ( 65770 ) on Saturday January 18, 2003 @07:23PM (#5110355)
    You've never going to save 40 minutes.

    This is just a solution looking for a problem, and I'll predict that it'll never ever be used.

    I live at a port in New Zealand (just outside Christchurch actually) and often watch the ships docking. My father used to tie them up. If I look to my left, I can see about a half-dozen ships out my window.

    The majority of the 40 minutes that the article quotes, that it takes to berth the ship, is the tugs turning, and pushing the ship to the wharf. That's the thing with ships, they have a big propeller at the back, which pushes them forwards, and they can't move from side to side. They do have a rudder, but it's not designed for more than a few degrees of turning, you can't use it to dock. (I'll stay away from bow thrusters for now)

    Basically the process goes like this...

    A Pilot (who works for the port, and is an expert in the local navigation/conditions of the port) is taken to the ship on a small launch, and meets it several miles from the harbour.

    The Pilot then commands the vessel, until it's tied up at the wharf. (s)he co-ordinates the ship, tugs, and wharf staff who, at the end of the operation drop the ropes over the bollards.

    Securing the ship with the ropes takes about 5 minutes on a slow day, getting the ship alongside the wharf takes about 35 minutes. The thing with ropes is, that...

    1) They're proven. They've been using them for thousands of years.
    2) It's a standard system, used all over the world.
    3) It's simple, never underestimate this.
    4) it copes well with varing weather and tides.
    5) You still need ropes to tie between the tugs and the ship.

    Now, as I said before, you've going to save about 5 minutes per berthing? Your damage costs are going to far outweigh the costs of any savings.

    And, what happens when the power goes out?

    The ship floats away, probably onto rocks.
    Backup Generators? Yeah sure, a diesel generator is going to hold a ship with 4-8000 shipping containers alongside a wharf, is bad weather, and an especially high tide, with no outages.

    I'm sorry, but there's no way this would ever work.

    • I live near the welland canal (Niagara Falls, Ontario. Canada, st lawerence sea way)

      I could see this work in a practical situtation for ships passing through docks, to keep them steady, drag them in or some jazz.

      Maybe thats what they're doing this year for maintenance!
    • Fair enough. But what happens if you're docking a cruise liner, a naval destroyer, or a cargo super-ship? What about an aircraft carrier? As I understand, docking those things can take days. I suspect those 40 minutes are actually used just in the mooring of such a ship.

      Also, as I was posting elsewhere on this thread, the cost of 1 Tesla magnets is high... as high as $1M per magnet, what with the computer systems, the liquid helium and liquid nitrogen costs, the concrete reinforcements, and all.

      So, how do you explain the $20M to $50M price tag of this project? I don't think somebody would spend that kind of money for 52 new 1 Tesla magnets (which the article also quotes) if they weren't doing anything other than docking cruise liners, cargo super-ships, naval destroyers, and aircraft carriers.

      And if they're using 1 Tesla cryomagnets (which is common for that field strength), it doesn't neccessarily matter if the electricity goes out... the superconductor keeps the magnetic charge. Hell, if they're docking things like aircraft carriers and cargo super-ships, I wouldn't be surprised if they found reason to spend $500,000 on the liquid helium costs alone, per ship, in order to go through a complete power up and power down of the cryomagnets before and after the ships dock. Actually, if they're docking any nuclear powered vehicle, such as submarines, destroyers, or aircraft carriers, I wouldn't be surprised at all if they were using cryomagnets.

      (FYI: It takes 2,000L of Helium per magnet, which costs about $5 per Liter, for a $10,000 cost per magnet, in terms of Helium alone. This works out to about $520,000 for the 52 magnets. But, then again, they may not be using cryomagnets. All they said was that they were 1 Tesla magnets.)
      • If it takes you 2 days to move a ship to port, who cares about the 40 minutes it takes to tie it up? It's a tiny saving 40 minutes in 48 hours.

        There are other problems of having 1 Tesla magnets. They attract shit, you are going to have to make sure any ferrous metals are nowhere near the magnets at any time during docking, loading and all that. What about the affects on the boat, sensitive equipment, etc. Also the possibility of magnetism the hull (uhh - captain we're still pointing north) and other problems.

        It's a bad idea, I can't believe someone got funding for it. Yeah, sure ropes are primitive and simplistic. But if you are going to go to all this effort to save, maybe, an hour then I am going to say it's a waste of time.
        • No offense to you personally, but I'm seeing a lot of the same comments from a lot of different people.

          First of all, this is an experiment.

          Second of all, they seem to have convinced a lot of people in positions they probably got by knowing what they're doing that this has the potential to save a lot of time and money. Please concede at least the possibility that this might actually happen or at the very least, your uneducated concerns might have already been addressed by the educated.

          Stop for a minute and repeat to yourself: I do not run a major ocean port. I do not run a major ocean port.
        • An hour saved on each ship that docks is HUGE!!! savings in a year. Remember, we're talking about one of the (if not /the/) biggest shipping harbour in the world. These aren't pleasure yachts, these are the largest containerships on earth. If you have had any experience with logistics, you'de know that an hour saved on something which happens so may times each day, every day of the year adds up to large increases in throughput, and thus in profit.

          As for the 'problems' you forsee...do you REALLY think they haven't been adressed? They'll make sure that the electromagnetic field is shaped, that it's (eventually) going to be cheaper (that's what cost/profitability studies are for) and that it doesn't affect the GPS system. Just as an example: if they hadn't already stated that they'd ensured the cargo wouldn't be affected by their new system, would /you/ have thought of that?

          Also, most ship's hulls are already under an electromagnetic influence: to halt corrosion, there's a block of metal called the "selfssacrificing metal" (direct dutch translation). What this does is have a different electrovalence than the hull, to ensure that the metal of that block is corroded instead of the hull. So who cares about "magnetising the hull"...it's already done, and won't affect the navigation in the slightest.
      • Actually, all of the big cruise ships I've dealt with (mostly Carnival) have at least bow and stern sideways thrusters, and the really big one have pivotable main thrusters. They can do things like turn in place.
        When your business involves docking every day or every other day, you come up with things make it easier.

        If you ever get to tour the bridge on a Carnival Holiday class boat, check out the "docking windows" in the floor at the outside ends of the bridge. They're in the part of the bridge that hang out over the side of the ship, and have a set of thruster controls in front of each one, so you can see 10 decks (130 some feet) below to the water, to park it.

  • Good for oil tankers (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jhines ( 82154 ) <john@jhines.org> on Saturday January 18, 2003 @07:29PM (#5110380) Homepage
    While the magnetic field would be bad for general cargo, something like oil wouldn't, so this could be used quite easily at an oil terminal.

    • well i was thinking about this with the article there, magnetic fields can be shaped by other magnetic fields and electrical fields. I have no idea if thats how they are doing it .. but you can actually get a great deal of control with these systems.. look at your TV.. that electron beam is control by a combination of electric (E) and magnetic (B) fields, working at right angles. IAMANE (i am not a naval enginneer) however 2 things occur to me, 1) the ships isnt filled wall to wall with cargo, cant be or it woudlbe a floating box (which dont sail thru water very well) and also 2) the 'control points' where one would normally hook/rope/chain a ship tothe dock (i think) would be likley to be reinforces to handle the stress cause by the motion of the ship vs the fixed point of the harbor. I dont see a technial reason why this all cant work. logistics.. well that remains tobe seen.

  • New for big ships, but not for small (Score:3, Interesting)

    by stefanb ( 21140 ) on Saturday January 18, 2003 @07:29PM (#5110382) Homepage
    This probably is new for sea-going ships, but for ferry-like ships and boats, where the stay will be only a few minutes, magnetic systems have been in use for quite some time.

    Although I can't find any technical details from Google, the Alsterdampfer in Hamburg, Germany, have been using a magnetic system for at least 30 years (no snide comments about my age, please). In this image [alstertouristik.de], you can see the magnets as the black-faced buckles on the side, just above the waterline.

    For this to work, the side of the jetty is plated with steel plates for the magnets to hold on to; depending on the skill (or inclination ;-) of the captain, the boat can be tucked towards the jetty quite violently...

    • I'm pretty impressed by the system they have on the passenger boats on the Rhine. They have no screws, as such. There's a single vertical drive shaft that sticks down through the hull amidships, and rotates a horizontal wheel. Blades much like those on an aircraft propeller extend vertically down from three points on the wheel, so they rotate somewhat like an eggbeater. A system of levers and bellcranks varies the pitch on the blades as they go around, and by setting the levers you can apply a torque in either direction and/or a translational force in any direction, independently. You can run forward like an ordinary boat, spin in one place, or move sideways into a dock at will.

      Those boats make passenger stops every two or three miles, and it doesn't take up much more time than a bus stop.

      rj
  • Has anyone considered the potential for such systems being used to trigger proximity-type sensors? I can imagine few more convenient ways to make terrorism easier than by employing large magnets like this and waiting for the fun to arrive.

    I am not studied in such areas, but can't one just place a sensor near the docking point and tell it to make something go boom when it detects such a magnet on the hull? It's not as though there are other such magnets being used at the same hull contact points, which might confuse such a strategy.

    I'm only asking...
    • I'm thinking that it would be easier to get some guy to release several bags of nails/washers/ball bearings which would go zooming towards the magnet at really high speeds - completely irrespective of anyone or anything that gets in their way.
    • Oh, wow...did you know that cars run on combustible gasoline? Or that powerplants have large electromagnets? Or that everyone has a cellphone which transmits a signal every time you get called? Or that....get the point?

      Who cares!? You have terrorists on the brain...at least the Irish and British didn't overreact.

  • Residual magenitsm of the hull? (Score:3, Informative)

    by RockyMountain ( 12635 ) on Saturday January 18, 2003 @07:41PM (#5110414) Homepage
    I'd worry about permanently magnetizing the hull.

    Sure, there won't be enough residual that it sticks to other passing ships, or anything, but what about interference with magnetic compasses.

    I had a steel-tube frame airplane, and it got so magnetized from arc welding that the mag compass was totally useless. No amount of swinging could correct the compass deviation. Nor did it help to replace the mag compass with a new one. I ended up degaussing the whole fuselage with a degauss coil designed for TV sets, and never had the problem again.

    But I can't see doing that on the scale of a container ship!

    • Re:Residual magenitsm of the hull? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by cybermace5 ( 446439 ) <g.ryan@macetech.com> on Saturday January 18, 2003 @09:07PM (#5110746) Homepage Journal
      Ships routinely have degaussing coils run along the inside of the hull.

      The earth's magnetic field tends to magnetize a ship over time. During the second world war, torpedoes and mines used magnetism as one method of detecting that a ship was near. The magnetism would also mess with the compasses, of course. Large ships, lacking degaussing coils, would routinely go back to port and dock in a way that used the earth's magnetic field to gradually cancel out the ship's magnetism.
      • As a matter of fact, the "Philadelphia Experiment" the alleged cloak/teleport experimentation that was done on a US Naval Vessel (was it during WWII or after?) was actually a test of a degaussing system, apparently, one meant to be used on large ships in dock.
      • Speaking as a former US Navy sailor stationed on a Destroyer: Yes and no.

        You see, the Navy is still very concerned about how magnetic their ships are. There are many munitions with magnetic sensors. After a yard period - when a ship has a lot of welding done to it - the degaussing cables need to be run across the entire ship encasing it in a huge net.

        As a practical note - doing this is a major pain in the ass. I've gone through it twice. When they need to run all those cables over (and under) the ship, it's the ships crew that are doing all the backwork. (and that's ALL the ships crew - I was an Electonic Warfare specialist - pulling cables). It also takes a couple of days to get all the cables in place. I lost a couple of weekends to these operations.

        Now, it sounds to me like this new system will put MUCH more magnetism into a ship than just the earth's background field. Perhaps they've devised a way to cancel any effects (maybe, reversing the field several times a second?) But I'd bet that enough residual would be left over that would require degaussing operations much more often than normal.

        My bet is the US Navy wont do anything like this anytime soon. Especially to save the last few minutes of time while tying up.
    • Do commercial freight ships even use magnetic compasses any more....I've seen them in museums, with the large iron balls to compensate for the hull of the ship....but I thought the norm nowadays was gyroscopes and GPS???

  • conversions (Score:2, Informative)

    by pummer ( 637413 )
    5,000,000 Euros = 5,335,000 USD
    Storm force 12 = 80 knots = 92 MPH

  • It's been done- (Score:4, Funny)

    by paiute ( 550198 ) on Saturday January 18, 2003 @09:24PM (#5110825)
    The Navy tried this using the USS Philadelphia, but the field was too strong, and the ship disappeared. It came back later filled with drunken Eagles fans.

  • Military vessels will never use this. (Score:3, Informative)

    by MyNameIsFred ( 543994 ) on Saturday January 18, 2003 @09:35PM (#5110882)
    Navies spend a lot of time and money making sure that their ships have small magnetic signatures -- magnetic triggers are common in undersea mines. Somehow slapping a few big magnets on the side of a ship everytime it docks doesn't seem like a good idea.

  • I'm annoyed by a lot of these comments (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Fastolfe ( 1470 ) on Saturday January 18, 2003 @09:55PM (#5110939)
    A lot of these uneducated comments in here are really bugging me. I see a lot of people saying this is a stupid idea, it'll be too expensive, it'll never work, etc. What is with all of the negativity?

    First of all, this is an experiment. Experiments never usually make money in the short term.

    Secondly, here's a quote from the article (which several posters need to actually read):
    If it works, they say the system could save them around 5 million Euro a year in labour costs, and speed ships' average turnaround times by 40 minutes.
    Could we please concede the possibility that someone has done a marginal amount of research into this and backed these figures up on some real numbers? Maybe it won't save them that much, or maybe the whole thing will end up costing too much. That's the point of an experiment, after all: to determine if something is going to work.

    And for all of the couch port authorities inhabiting Slashdot, please remember that this is probably going to be done with the blessing (and financial support) of a large ocean port. I know that perhaps many of you think you know more about docking ships, managing large ocean-going vessels and the expenses associated with these activities than those in charge of these ports, but please take a deep breath, relax for a minute, and consider the possibility that maybe they're supporting this experiment for a reason, and that reason probably has less to do with a mad scientist trying to dupe someone into buying them a lot of expensive magnets and more to do with a convincing argument that this experiment could save them money in the long run.

  • 1st Note to self: Time to sell stock in companies that make large ropes for mooring ships in harbors.

    2nd Note to self:
    1. Patent, and copyright a system that uses DRM enabled, pulsed-electromagnets that attact each other.
    2. Wait a few years until new electromagnetic boat docking system becomes popular.
    3. Sue everyone that uses this new system under the DMCA and demand hefty license fees.
    4. Profit!
    5. Ask congress to invent a new tax on magnets and electromagnets that is paid directly to me for piracy compensation.
    6. Low probablility of Profit, but a fun waste of time.

    "Where have all the great men gone?" -me
  • Martian Canal, in the Royal Barge

    >push orange button
    The writing on the button changes as you press it

    The Royal Barge drifts slowly around the bend, ending up near the western bank of the canal.

    >read orange button
    The huge orange button reads: MagnetoMoor off

    >_
    (From 'Leather Goddesses of Phobos' Infocom, 1986)

  • Calling Rotterdam just "a port in the Netherlands" is an understatement: Rotterdam is the largest port in the world [rotterdamroi.com] and has been for some years...

  • Coutse and heading, captain (Score:3, Funny)

    by ralphclark ( 11346 ) on Sunday January 19, 2003 @08:28AM (#5112782) Journal
    I hope the pilot remembers to attend the academy lecture on conservation of tractor beam power!

  • Imagine the cost ... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by fygment ( 444210 )
    ... of an accident. I've been in the Navy for 20 years. Ship's hit hard sometimes, even with tugs, when the current, wind, etc. go against you. Right now it's a bit of wood that gets crunched. What's the cost on those magnets again? And as if water, salt, air and metal weren't bad enough, toss in some high current lines and huge magnetic fields. Seems very complicated, high maintenance, and for no obvious benefit.

Slashdot Top Deals

A Fortran compiler is the hobgoblin of little minis.

Close