Share
18,293 Posts.
lightbulb Created with Sketch. 1535
clock Created with Sketch.
24/09/14
03:33
Share
Originally posted by Jukes
↑
It is reasonably clear that Bosch Rexroth was working on the WavePOD for Aquamarine for some time before CWE joined the party, else they could not have a prototype ready for external testing in such short time interval. CWE of course writes its ASX announcements in the best possible light as if it were a major player in the process. We can’t blame CWE for putting on its best suit but we do need to recognise that fact.
One very good reason for creating the collaboration huddle is that it is much more likely to attract funding from government agencies. If the benefits to go to an entire industry rather than single companies, grants appear to be more impartial and greater value generating. This would be one reason why Carnegie was invited into the cosy group. It is excellent to see that funding for the WavePOD is supported by the Scottish Government’s MRCF.
The WavePOD for CETO 6 will be very different from that for Aquamarine. The photograph clearly shows the rockers relevant for the Aquamarine angular oscillatory motion (oyster flapping) while CETO generator will become a long linear affair commensurate with the maximum damped wave amplitude. They are both still called WavePODs for the purpose of funding applications.
Teddy,
CWE has no expertise to contribute to the power generating mechanism that Bosch Rexroth will develop. It will simply be a buyer of the finished product and therefore will have to give clear specifications of its needs and provide final sea test beds. But ‘collaboration’ sounds better in announcements. In March MO didn’t know exactly how it would work but he envisaged that after launch of BA, hatches would open, and a string of the major components (seafloor universal joint, tether, joint, WavePOD) would be lowered through the centre of the BA to the anchor point, all in one operation.
The current CETO 5 actuator is low power (240 kW), therefore not cost effective, and less efficient if it has to push fluid along very long pipelines. In-buoy generation also has other advantages.
Larger buoys may be slightly flatter in profile. A CETO 6 will have a diameter of about 17m and therefore a height of 7 to 8m. That should easily accommodate a stroke length of 5 to 6m if desired. The Energy Relief mechanism might limit it to less than that anyway.
There will be new issues for linear generators: there is a central sliding component whose movement will be the wave amplitude but where the gap between the magnets and the coils have to be very small to retain efficiency.
Will Bosch Rexroth be prepared to develop both WavePODs in parallel? Might CWE be relegated to wait till Aquamarine have theirs?
Juke
Expand
Jukes,
Does the linear generator necessarily have to be onboard? Is it possible that an external version that sits on the sea floor could be adapted for CETO?
Even a quarter scale generator (weighing 25 tonne??) mentioned as a possibility for WaveHub, is a lot of weight to have sitting in the belly of the BA.
The mind boggles at the thought of a full scale generator (weighing 100 tonne??), bouncing around inside a monster BA in 5 metre seas.
Am I completely on the wrong track?
Cheers MF